From edelman at greenidea.info Mon Oct 1 22:48:47 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:48:47 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Wanted: Self-damaging public transport and cycling ads...
and positive examples from pop culture
Message-ID: <4700FABF.2050804@greenidea.info>
Wanted: Self-damaging public transport and cycling ads... and positive
examples of PT from pop culture
What does this mean, exactly?
In regards to public transport, it means things like this:
That is:
* Adverts on public transport vehicles or adjacent support structures
owned or managed by the public transport provider, advertising
companies, etc. which portrays PT in a negative light, insults
customers/passengers.. and so on.
(This does not mean things like the infamous "Creeps and Weirdos"
which is negative about PT but
was not - as far as I know - placed in the spaces I mention. By the way,
notice the bike rack on the front of the bus?)
* In regards to cycling, it can be less direct, meaning, e.g. automobile
or other anti-environment ads in spaces in Lyon or Paris owned by
JCDecaux which are part of the Velib public bikes deal.
* And it can also mean bicycle ads or marketing which portray using PT
as slow, crowded, etc.
* Positive examples from pop culture would be things like this:
, or this
or even fun stuff like
this:
PT does not have to be the main focus of the piece... and it is better
if it is not.
* Bad portrayals of PT in pop culture and the media will inevitably show
up in this investigation, but they are not what I am most interested in.
* Also, if anyone has information on contracts between PT operators and
any advertising contractors which specifically prohibit self-damaging
adverts I would be happy to get it.
+++++
I am collecting all this stuff to put on my Flickr page and/or my Blog
and later on a website, for all to use. It depends on what kinds of
contributions I receive. I think there are some collections of this
stuff already out there, right?
Thanks for your help,
T
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From eric.britton at free.fr Fri Oct 5 03:26:58 2007
From: eric.britton at free.fr (eric.britton)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:26:58 +0200
Subject: [sustran] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paris_V=E9lib=27_report_ready_for_review?=
Message-ID: <024901c806b4$2e4df500$8ae9df00$@britton@free.fr>
My advanced draft for the Paris V?lib' project is now ready for review and
comment. Below you will see the TOC for the report which runs to some 52
pages. I think it is a fairly easy and I hope useful read.
I will be pleased to send this on against comments, so if that sounds good
to you get in touch with me privately and I'll send on a copy by return.
Best/Eric
Contents:
Letter of <> invitation to Mayor and City Leaders. 3
Foreword <> . 5
1. <> New Mobility in Paris: The politics of transport 7
1.1 <> The Paris 2007 transport problematique in brief 8
1.2 <> A short history of Old and New Mobility in Paris. 10
1.3 <> Paris' new mobility toolbox: Building blocks for a sustainable
city. 12
1.3 <> 2007 political priorities - Overview. 14
1.5 <> Screening criteria for selected Paris examples. 16
2. <> The groundwork: City Bike projects 1968-2007. 18
2.1 <> What's a "City Bike"?. 18
2.2 <> How they work and what they do. 19
2.3 <> A short history of City Bikes. 20
2.4 <> V?lo'v: Lyons shows the way. 22
2.5 <> Lessons learned. 23
2.6 <> Local cycling environment checklist 24
3. <> Paris's pioneering city bicycle project 25
3.1 <> Paris 2007 V?lib' project in brief: 26
3.2 <> How Velib' works: 27
3.3 <> What makes Velib' special?. 28
3.4 <> V?lib' status report- as of October 2007. 29
3.5 <> V?lib' Q&A - October 2007. 30
4. <> Reflections, observations and some recommendations. 32
4.1 <> Reflections. 32
4.2 Lessons from V?lib' 36
4.3 Recommendations. 40
4.5 The Reinvention Test: Criteria for selecting measures. 43
Acknowledgements: <> 44
Annexes <> . 45
A: <> Useful V?lib'/City Bike References (print and web) 45
B <> : Selected European City Bike Projects. 46
C: <> Public bike providers and contacts. 47
C: <> Sources of information and expertise for your City Bike system..
48
D: Vol. 2.The Greening of Transport in Paris: 50
E. <> Vol. 4. City-Cycles Workbook - Table of contents. 51
From edelman at greenidea.info Sat Oct 6 09:28:45 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 02:28:45 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Pollution in Paris... from Bicycles
Message-ID: <4706D6BD.6070907@greenidea.info>
"... hundreds of electric billboards have sprung up all over town. These
are part of the deal in which the council provides extensive use of
advertising space to an urban display company in payment for its
provision of the V?lib? service.
An anti-advertising group yesterday announced a mass outing to attack
the billboards on Friday night [28 September]. The D?boulonneurs
organisation, which has made a splash with guerrilla-style raids on
M?tro station posters, said: ?This is visual pollution of the city . . .
and energy pollution because each billboard consumes as much electricity
as the average household.?
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From eric.britton at free.fr Sat Oct 6 15:47:26 2007
From: eric.britton at free.fr (eric.britton)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 08:47:26 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Pollution in Paris... from Bicycles
Message-ID: <012b01c807e4$c4181670$4c484350$@britton@free.fr>
[Thanks so much for that good heads-up on this Todd. There's a lot to it.
And indeed we have a section on this in our forthcoming Greening of Paris -
V?lib' report. Vigilance is so important. Eric Britton]
-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2007 02:29
"... hundreds of electric billboards have sprung up all over town. These
are part of the deal in which the council provides extensive use of
advertising space to an urban display company in payment for its
provision of the V?lib' service.
An anti-advertising group yesterday announced a mass outing to attack
the billboards on Friday night [28 September]. The D?boulonneurs
organisation, which has made a splash with guerrilla-style raids on
M?tro station posters, said: "This is visual pollution of the city . . .
and energy pollution because each billboard consumes as much electricity
as the average household."
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
From eric.britton at free.fr Sun Oct 7 03:51:46 2007
From: eric.britton at free.fr (eric.britton)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 20:51:46 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: Pollution in Paris... from Bicycles
Message-ID: <033801c80849$fa049be0$ee0dd3a0$@britton@free.fr>
Todd Edelman kindly brought this matter to your attention this morning. And
since I too have been concerned about it and certainly don?t wish this to
become the Achilles heel of an otherwise great city project, I thought you
might be interested to see how we are treating this in the V?lib? portion of
the Greening of Paris report. I have cut this out for your convenience here,
but if you have not a yet made your way to the full report at
http://www.invent.newmobility.org (you?ll see it on the left menu) I hope
this may encourage you to do so. And as said many times, we are still most
interested in having your comments and critical remarks for improving. Kind
thanks. Eric Britton
>From ?V?lib? - Paris City Bike Project (http://www.invent.newmobility.org)
The street advertising end of things (Oops!)
This is turning out to be one of the less comfortable building blocks of
this great project, and of which I think you as mayors and civic leaders
should be made fully aware. You risk possibly to find yourselves in s
similar situation in your city, so here is some early news to help you out.
At present the contractual arrangements signed by the city of Paris provides
a V?lib?/street advertising package. The present contract runs for ten years
and has been signed by both the city and the contractor in full legal form.
It is a binding contract.
However we are seeing what I have to agree is a certain level of predatory
abuse by the advertizing-implementing partner, in terms of (a) the number,
intrusiveness and placement of the 1,628 panels to which they have been
given the right by the City of Paris, and (b) (and more surprisingly) the
very non-green energy consumption of the new, large and very intrusive
rolling displays.
Advance notice of this was provided by cycling, pedestrian and public space
groups in Lyons after the V?lo-v project had started to mature. However
somehow this did not seem to make its way to the Paris team in time to
influence the contract signing with JCDecaux. Let?s have a quick look at
this situation since it is an important point for your city if you are
considering this option.
Seen from the vantage of the advertiser, the contracting partner is just
doing its job: attracting the attention of the largest number of people to
the messages that their clients wish to bring to their attention. That is
on the one side. The other is that there is a level of intrusiveness beyond
which people are no longer free to enjoy their city because of this plethora
of too many, to blatant messages on too many sides. Then too there are
matters of public safety to be considered.
Here are some of the claims that are being made by cycling, public space and
environmental groups ? all of whom, incidentally, are strong supporters of
the V?lib?? project other than for this one bit of abuse:
* Visual pollution ? The large number of these panels, their placement
and their technology are creating unnecessary intrusions and ?noise? in the
daily lives of citizens
* Size of the street displays ? they are said to be too large and
obtrusive (the
* Number of these displays ? The protesting groups claim that instead
of the targeted 20% reduction in street displays specified in the contract,
when you take into account the rolling displays, there is an increase of
?visual pollution? of some 220%
* Their physical placement ? A number of the panels have been placed
obtrusively on sidewalks , thus impeding pedestrian circulation and
visibility
* Energy waste ? One of the public interest groups has calculated that
one of those motorized displays consumes as much energy as an average
household uses for its domestic appliances.
* Safety: Certainly if you are a driver or cyclist driving by one of
these strategically place, very visible large signs and rotating displays,
you are inevitably forced to an extent to take your eye off the road. That
after all is why it is there. But this can be very hazardous as you can well
imagine
Strategies:
This is a very complicated business, but in the last weeks we are seeing at
least a path for how Paris might be able to deal with this threat ? and for
you possibly important sink it suggest some strategizing which you can
anticipate and head off this potential threat in advance.
The public interest groups here in Paris are taking several approaches about
which you may find it useful to know. They are looking at three things:
1. New and tighter guidelines for the displays
2. The possibility of legally abrogating and/or changing the conditions
of the existing agreement.
3. Separation of the public/private partnership into two contracts; one
for the service rendered (i.e., V?lib?) and the other for the advertizing
portion
Let?s look briefly at these in order.
New display guidelines : More stringent limitations on size and placement.
Complete suppression of all rolling and illuminated displays, including any
that use sound or odors to attract public attention..
Contract challenges: (There is no discernable trail indicating how this
might be accomplished at this point.)
Separation of the present agreement into two separate parts: one contract
which specifies the public service to be provided (V?lib?) with information
on costs and performance (The present contract since it subsumes both
aspects into a single global package is thus opaque in terms of costs (and
benefits) and does not permit the city to have full control of the economic
aspects of the public service.)
Denis Baupin, the city counselor in charge of all transport projects in
Paris has recently called this the ?municipalization? of what should in his
view (and in mine) be a fully public service. He has argued in recent
interviews that this will be important for other mayors in Paris as they
look to establish such service in their own communities. And who can
disagree with him on that?
From edelman at greenidea.info Mon Oct 8 05:11:41 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:11:41 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: Pollution in Paris... from Bicycles
In-Reply-To: <033801c80849$fa049be0$ee0dd3a0$@britton@free.fr>
References: <033801c80849$fa049be0$ee0dd3a0$@britton@free.fr>
Message-ID: <47093D7D.20203@greenidea.info>
Hi Eric,
Not sure how to word it exactly but IF the "Billboards for Bicycles"
scheme is used the content of the advertisements has to not be damaging
to sustainable transport. This essentially means no petroleum or private
car ads.
But of course that means that bike people or whatever sell out other
causes as they as relate to other possible advertisers.
So basically this whole funding model is TOTALLY ROTTEN AT A
FOUNDATIONAL LEVEL.
***
- T
eric.britton wrote:
>
> Todd Edelman kindly brought this matter to your attention this
> morning. And since I too have been concerned about it and certainly
> don?t wish this to become the Achilles heel of an otherwise great city
> project, I thought you might be interested to see how we are treating
> this in the V?lib? portion of the Greening of Paris report. I have cut
> this out for your convenience here, but if you have not a yet made
> your way to the full report at http://www.invent.newmobility.org
> (you?ll see it on the left menu) I hope this may encourage you to do
> so. And as said many times, we are still most interested in having
> your comments and critical remarks for improving. Kind thanks. Eric
> Britton
>
> */From ?V?lib? - Paris City Bike Project
> (http://www.invent.newmobility.org)/**/__/*
>
>
> The street advertising end of things (Oops!)
>
> This is turning out to be one of the less comfortable building blocks
> of this great project, and of which I think you as mayors and civic
> leaders should be made fully aware. You risk possibly to find
> yourselves in s similar situation in your city, so here is some early
> news to help you out.
>
> At present the contractual arrangements signed by the city of Paris
> provides a V?lib?/street advertising package. The present contract
> runs for ten years and has been signed by both the city and the
> contractor in full legal form. It is a binding contract.
>
> However we are seeing what I have to agree is a certain level of
> predatory abuse by the advertizing-implementing partner, in terms of
> (a) the number, intrusiveness and placement of the 1,628 panels to
> which they have been given the right by the City of Paris, and (b)
> (and more surprisingly) the very non-green energy consumption of the
> new, large and very intrusive rolling displays.
>
> Advance notice of this was provided by cycling, pedestrian and public
> space groups in Lyons after the V?lo-v project had started to mature.
> However somehow this did not seem to make its way to the Paris team in
> time to influence the contract signing with JCDecaux. Let?s have a
> quick look at this situation since it is an important point for your
> city if you are considering this option.
>
> Seen from the vantage of the advertiser, the contracting partner is
> just doing its job: attracting the attention of the largest number of
> people to the messages that their clients wish to bring to their
> attention. That is on the one side. The other is that there is a level
> of intrusiveness beyond which people are no longer free to enjoy their
> city because of this plethora of too many, to blatant messages on too
> many sides. Then too there are matters of public safety to be considered.
>
> Here are some of the claims that are being made by cycling, public
> space and environmental groups ? all of whom, incidentally, are strong
> supporters of the V?lib?? project other than for this one bit of abuse:
>
> * *Visual pollution* ? The large number of these panels, their
> placement and their technology are creating unnecessary
> intrusions and ?noise? in the daily lives of citizens
> * *Size of the street displays* ? they are said to be too large
> and obtrusive (the
> * *Number of these displays* ? The protesting groups claim that
> instead of the targeted 20% reduction in street displays
> specified in the contract, when you take into account the
> rolling displays, there is an increase of ?visual pollution? of
> some 220%
> * *Their physical placement* ? A number of the panels have been
> placed obtrusively on sidewalks , thus impeding pedestrian
> circulation and visibility
> * *Energy waste* ? One of the public interest groups has
> calculated that one of those motorized displays consumes as much
> energy as an average household uses for its domestic appliances.
> * *Safety*: Certainly if you are a driver or cyclist driving by
> one of these strategically place, very visible large signs and
> rotating displays, you are inevitably forced to an extent to
> take your eye off the road. That after all is why it is there.
> But this can be very hazardous as you can well imagine
>
> *Strategies:*
>
> This is a very complicated business, but in the last weeks we are
> seeing at least a path for how Paris might be able to deal with this
> threat ? and for you possibly important sink it suggest some
> strategizing which you can anticipate and head off this potential
> threat in advance.
>
> The public interest groups here in Paris are taking several approaches
> about which you may find it useful to know. They are looking at three
> things:
>
> 1. New and tighter guidelines for the displays
> 2. The possibility of legally abrogating and/or changing the
> conditions of the existing agreement.
> 3. Separation of the public/private partnership into two contracts;
> one for the service rendered (i.e., V?lib?) and the other for
> the advertizing portion
>
> Let?s look briefly at these in order.
>
> *New display guidelines* : More stringent limitations on size and
> placement. Complete suppression of all rolling and illuminated
> displays, including any that use sound or odors to attract public
> attention..
>
> *Contract challenges: (*There is no discernable trail indicating how
> this might be accomplished at this point.)**
>
> *Separation of the present agreement into two separate parts: one*
> contract which specifies the public service to be provided (V?lib?)
> with information on costs and performance (The present contract since
> it subsumes both aspects into a single global package is thus opaque
> in terms of costs (and benefits) and does not permit the city to have
> full control of the economic aspects of the public service.)
>
> Denis Baupin, the city counselor in charge of all transport projects
> in Paris has recently called this the ?municipalization? of what
> should in his view (and in mine) be a fully public service. He has
> argued in recent interviews that this will be important for other
> mayors in Paris as they look to establish such service in their own
> communities. And who can disagree with him on that?
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From operations at velomondial.net Mon Oct 8 05:34:37 2007
From: operations at velomondial.net (Pascal van den Noort)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 22:34:37 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] Pollution in Paris... from Bicycles
In-Reply-To: <4706D6BD.6070907@greenidea.info>
References: <4706D6BD.6070907@greenidea.info>
Message-ID: <011001c80921$8d098040$9600000a@MPBV>
Friends,
This mass outing in Paris attacking the billboards on Friday night is na?ve.
The way Parisians massively take up cycling, thanks to the Billboard Company
and the Paris City Authorities, saving dramatic kilowatts of electricity and
cleaning the air in Paris, outways the use of electricity in the billboard
big time.
It is amazing that overnight a whole city can take up cycling, more than any
criticaster has achieved; in two months over 5,5 million times these
bicycles were used.
I think this populist campaign is unwarranted. It would be na?ve if we would
condone this not very bright action.
The car free movement as well as the pro environment movement should say NO
to these silly initiatives of these Parisian protesters.
Pascal J.W. van den Noort
Velo Mondial
http://velomondial.blogspot.com
From edelman at greenidea.info Mon Oct 8 06:26:20 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:26:20 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] RE: Pollution in Paris... from
Bicycles
In-Reply-To: <011001c80921$8d098040$9600000a@MPBV>
References: <4706D6BD.6070907@greenidea.info>
<011001c80921$8d098040$9600000a@MPBV>
Message-ID: <47094EFC.9000307@greenidea.info>
Hi Pascal,
I suppose I agree with you about the energy issue. I agree with you that
the cycling part of this programme is amazing.
But if a programme like this is so important to a city why do deals have
to made that create other types of pollution, which cannot be balanced
against the energy reduction in transport? What about the content of the
billboards themselves?
I hope that every true colour in our rainbow of sustainability remembers
what solidarity means.
I hope that you also understand how closely tied together is mass
advertising and mass automobilisation.... cars are a big part of this
image war. BMW sponsoring VeloCity in Munich... four car companies
sponsoring the biggest consortium of Central, Eastern and Southeastern
European environmental foundations (one intermediary away from World
Carfree Network)... Shell, pushing oil for personal cars all over the
world while it supports BRT projects in a only couple of cities... and
JCDecaux's support of cycling in a few European cities, but working
against this in others
... these
are all pacifiers that all-too-easily find willing mouths in which it
seems the teeth are hiding.
No deals, says this criticaster.
- T
Pascal van den Noort wrote:
>
> Friends,
>
>
>
> This mass outing in Paris attacking the billboards on Friday night is
> na?ve.
>
> The way Parisians massively take up cycling, thanks to the Billboard
> Company and the Paris City Authorities, saving dramatic kilowatts of
> electricity and cleaning the air in Paris, outways the use of
> electricity in the billboard big time.
>
>
>
> It is amazing that overnight a whole city can take up cycling, more
> than any criticaster has achieved; in two months over 5,5 million
> times these bicycles were used.
>
>
>
> I think this populist campaign is unwarranted. It would be na?ve if we
> would condone this not very bright action.
>
>
>
> The car free movement as well as the pro environment movement should
> say NO to these silly initiatives of these Parisian protesters.
>
>
>
> Pascal J.W. van den Noort
>
> Velo Mondial
>
> http://velomondial.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From operations at velomondial.net Mon Oct 8 06:43:35 2007
From: operations at velomondial.net (Pascal van den Noort)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 23:43:35 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] Re: RE: Pollution in Paris... from
Bicycles
In-Reply-To: <47094EFC.9000307@greenidea.info>
References: <4706D6BD.6070907@greenidea.info>
<011001c80921$8d098040$9600000a@MPBV>
<47094EFC.9000307@greenidea.info>
Message-ID: <013701c8092b$2d831c30$9600000a@MPBV>
Hi Todd,
You will realize that I disagree with all the ideological stuff you wrote. I
am happy that you agree with my energy saving analyses.
I am curious about possible other possible positions.
In the meantime I give you this Velo Mondial initiative:
Amsterdam never used cycling and cycling planning as a means of cleaning the
air in the city. European measures now oblige Amsterdam to act. With the
introduction of a 'Main
Network for Emission Free Traffic' , modes of transport that do not
emit, like electric cars, bike taxis, Segways, roller skates, skeelers and
bicycles, will get an improved and much wider space (8 meters) to move fast
in the city. As a consequence car lanes will have to be taken out to allow
for emission free lanes to be built....... Provided the City Council accepts
these plans.
Read more:
http://velomondial.blogspot.com/2007/10/main-network-emission-free-traffic.h
tml
Pascal J.W. van den Noort
Executive Director Velo Mondial
Velo Mondial's Blog
www.velomondial.net
www.velo.info
http://spicycles.velo.info
operations@velomondial.net
+31206270675 landline
+31627055688 mobile phone
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory [mailto:edelman@greenidea.info]
Verzonden: zondag 7 oktober 2007 23:26
Aan: Pascal van den Noort
CC: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; 'Vojtech Toman';
petr.stepanek@cityofprague.cz; 'SFBIKE List List'; 'WCN list'; 'Michal
Krivohlavek, Auto*Mat'; 'martin Marecek'; 'craig baldwin'; 'Ondrej Velek';
office@ecf.com
Onderwerp: [carfree_network] Re: RE: Pollution in Paris... from Bicycles
Hi Pascal,
I suppose I agree with you about the energy issue. I agree with you that
the cycling part of this programme is amazing.
But if a programme like this is so important to a city why do deals have
to made that create other types of pollution, which cannot be balanced
against the energy reduction in transport? What about the content of the
billboards themselves?
I hope that every true colour in our rainbow of sustainability remembers
what solidarity means.
I hope that you also understand how closely tied together is mass
advertising and mass automobilisation.... cars are a big part of this
image war. BMW sponsoring VeloCity in Munich... four car companies
sponsoring the biggest consortium of Central, Eastern and Southeastern
European environmental foundations (one intermediary away from World
Carfree Network)... Shell, pushing oil for personal cars all over the
world while it supports BRT projects in a only couple of cities... and
JCDecaux's support of cycling in a few European cities, but working
against this in others
... these
are all pacifiers that all-too-easily find willing mouths in which it
seems the teeth are hiding.
No deals, says this criticaster.
- T
Pascal van den Noort wrote:
>
> Friends,
>
>
>
> This mass outing in Paris attacking the billboards on Friday night is
> na?ve.
>
> The way Parisians massively take up cycling, thanks to the Billboard
> Company and the Paris City Authorities, saving dramatic kilowatts of
> electricity and cleaning the air in Paris, outways the use of
> electricity in the billboard big time.
>
>
>
> It is amazing that overnight a whole city can take up cycling, more
> than any criticaster has achieved; in two months over 5,5 million
> times these bicycles were used.
>
>
>
> I think this populist campaign is unwarranted. It would be na?ve if we
> would condone this not very bright action.
>
>
>
> The car free movement as well as the pro environment movement should
> say NO to these silly initiatives of these Parisian protesters.
>
>
>
> Pascal J.W. van den Noort
>
> Velo Mondial
>
> http://velomondial.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
[carfree_network] list guidelines and unsubscribe information are found at
http://www.worldcarfree.net/listservs/. Send messages for the entire list to
carfree_network@lists.riseup.net. Send replies to individuals off-list.
From eric.britton at free.fr Mon Oct 8 15:30:28 2007
From: eric.britton at free.fr (eric.britton)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 08:30:28 +0200
Subject: [sustran] cost to a city of a single say 3 km. car trip during the
day?
Message-ID: <001b01c80974$bd6a0f40$383e2dc0$@britton@free.fr>
1. What is the cost to a city - to your city? - of a single say 3 km.
car trip during the day?
a. For the usual mix: including explicit to the city costs (I guess
that might be mainly road maintenance but there may be others that do not
come immediately to mind) -- and also of course the environmental and other
external costs.
b. I understand that most of the costs will be in the latter categories
- and I understand as well that these are not for the most part born by the
city (as an accounting unit).
c. But still if I am a responsible 21st century mayor, I would want to
know that number because it would help me make a lot of good decisions.
d. It might be handy to see these in a bit of detail, but it is really
the bottom line number (and its explanation) that holds the key
2. It would be great if you could lend a hand with this.
3. And BTW, if I know this, then I can start to play with it in order
to think about how the city might take an active role in financing a city
bike project such as V?lib' or the one your mayor may be thinking about.
Your good help in this will be your own reward,
;-)
PS. Again, if the Greening of Paris series and the in-process V?lib' policy
brief interest you at all, this is to let you know that the latter is being
updated about twice a day and that you can find it on the left menu at
http://www.invent.newmobility.org. As indicated earlier, comments, etc. are
warmly welcome. It looks as if we will have this fully in the bag by the end
of the week, but it already is a pretty good read (I am told).
From operations at velomondial.net Mon Oct 8 16:55:12 2007
From: operations at velomondial.net (Pascal van den Noort)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:55:12 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] Re: RE: Pollution in Paris...
from Bicycles
In-Reply-To: <4709752F.40201@gmail.com>
References: <4706D6BD.6070907@greenidea.info> <011001c80921$8d098040$9600000a@MPBV> <47094EFC.9000307@greenidea.info>
<013701c8092b$2d831c30$9600000a@MPBV> <4709752F.40201@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <017501c80980$a1f68250$9600000a@MPBV>
Dear Carlos, friends and colleagues,
Projects like V?lib and other flagship projects function like flares; they
attract the attention of cities all over the world and promote provisions
for emission free traffic like cycling. These flagship projects are
supportive of a massive movement that is growing fast now, with EU 2010
emission reduction demands.
Cycling and other modes of emission free traffic are massively on the
increase and V?lib is only an expression of that. Velo Mondial has been and
is involved in NATCYP (first European Cycling Project), LUTR, Velo.Info,
Spicycles and other projects. Other projects on the move are: Baltic Sea
Cycling, UrBike , MoCuBa , Bypad, Eurovelo.
These are just a few cities I can now mention that work on a variety of
cycling projects in Europe: Sevilla (Spain), IId District of Budapest
(Hungary), Dresden (Germany), Kielce (Poland), Florence (Italy),
Frederiksberg (Denmark), Mesa Yitonia (Cyprus), Xanthi (Greece),Barcelona
(Spain), Berlin (Germany), Bucharest (Romania), G?teborg (Sweden), Ploiesti
(Romania), Rome (Italy), ?rebro (Sweden), Bad Doberan, (Germany), Drammen
(Norway), Kalmar (Sweden), Klaipeda (Lithuania), Kl?tzer-Winkel (Germany),
Sch?nberg (Germany), Link?ping (Sweden), Cesis (Latvia), Grevesm?hlen
(Germany), Livani (Latvia), ADFC Rostock (Germany), Rehna (Germany),
Siauliai (Lithuania), Jelgava (Latvia), V?ster?s (Sweden), Rostock
(Germany). And then there are ? old? cycling cities like Amsterdam that is
now considering a Main
network of emission free routes.
Velo Mondial sees these projects as grass roots projects where cities take
the initiative; this movement of cities taking the lead should be supported
and be seen as the ultimate way to go.
This month, together with Spicycles and Velo.Info, Velo Mondial will launch
a project where cities can fill in an online questionnaire; they will then
be provided with their City Characteristic?s Report for emission free
traffic as well as a report comparing their achievements with those of other
cities. This will provide them the opportunity to learn from their peers.
We will keep you of this and more cycling promotion initiatives via Velo
Mondial's Blog
Pascal J.W. van den Noort
Executive Director Velo Mondial
www.velomondial.net
www.velo.info
http://spicycles.velo.info
operations@velomondial.net
+31206270675 landline
+31627055688 mobile phone
_____
Van: Carlos F. Pardo [mailto:carlosfpardo@gmail.com]
Verzonden: maandag 8 oktober 2007 2:09
Aan: Pascal van den Noort
CC: edelman@greenidea.info; 'craig baldwin'; 'martin Marecek';
petr.stepanek@cityofprague.cz; 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport';
'Vojtech Toman'; 'Michal Krivohlavek, Auto*Mat'; 'Ondrej Velek';
office@ecf.com; 'SFBIKE List List'; 'WCN list'
Onderwerp: Re: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] Re: RE: Pollution in Paris...
from Bicycles
Hi,
I would love to hear anyone's ideas on how this situation can be solved.
That is, how could you develop a massive project such as Velib without
funding from big organizations? If we found alternatives to this, I would
definitely go with Todd's argument. Otherwise, we may just keep waiting for
a holy and fully green funder that can provide the funds to develop a
project like Velib. I would think that, if we put forward a criticism, it
would also be useful to hear a counterproposal to solve that problem being
criticized. However, I thank Todd for his eternal vigilance!
Best regards,
Carlos F. Pardo
Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator
GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC)
Cl 93A # 14-17 of 708
Bogot? D.C., Colombia
Tel/fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662
carlos.pardo@sutp.org www.sutp.org
Pascal van den Noort wrote:
Hi Todd,
You will realize that I disagree with all the ideological stuff you wrote. I
am happy that you agree with my energy saving analyses.
I am curious about possible other possible positions.
In the meantime I give you this Velo Mondial initiative:
Amsterdam never used cycling and cycling planning as a means of cleaning the
air in the city. European measures now oblige Amsterdam to act. With the
introduction of a 'Main
> Network for Emission Free Traffic' , modes of transport that do not
emit, like electric cars, bike taxis, Segways, roller skates, skeelers and
bicycles, will get an improved and much wider space (8 meters) to move fast
in the city. As a consequence car lanes will have to be taken out to allow
for emission free lanes to be built....... Provided the City Council accepts
these plans.
Read more:
http://velomondial.blogspot.com/2007/10/main-network-emission-free-traffic.h
tml
Pascal J.W. van den Noort
Executive Director Velo Mondial
Velo Mondial's Blog
www.velomondial.net
www.velo.info
http://spicycles.velo.info
operations@velomondial.net
+31206270675 landline
+31627055688 mobile phone
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory [mailto:edelman@greenidea.info]
Verzonden: zondag 7 oktober 2007 23:26
Aan: Pascal van den Noort
CC: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; 'Vojtech Toman';
petr.stepanek@cityofprague.cz; 'SFBIKE List List'; 'WCN list'; 'Michal
Krivohlavek, Auto*Mat'; 'martin Marecek'; 'craig baldwin'; 'Ondrej Velek';
office@ecf.com
Onderwerp: [carfree_network] Re: RE: Pollution in Paris... from Bicycles
Hi Pascal,
I suppose I agree with you about the energy issue. I agree with you that
the cycling part of this programme is amazing.
But if a programme like this is so important to a city why do deals have
to made that create other types of pollution, which cannot be balanced
against the energy reduction in transport? What about the content of the
billboards themselves?
I hope that every true colour in our rainbow of sustainability remembers
what solidarity means.
I hope that you also understand how closely tied together is mass
advertising and mass automobilisation.... cars are a big part of this
image war. BMW sponsoring VeloCity in Munich... four car companies
sponsoring the biggest consortium of Central, Eastern and Southeastern
European environmental foundations (one intermediary away from World
Carfree Network)... Shell, pushing oil for personal cars all over the
world while it supports BRT projects in a only couple of cities... and
JCDecaux's support of cycling in a few European cities, but working
against this in others
... these
are all pacifiers that all-too-easily find willing mouths in which it
seems the teeth are hiding.
No deals, says this criticaster.
- T
Pascal van den Noort wrote:
Friends,
This mass outing in Paris attacking the billboards on Friday night is
na?ve.
The way Parisians massively take up cycling, thanks to the Billboard
Company and the Paris City Authorities, saving dramatic kilowatts of
electricity and cleaning the air in Paris, outways the use of
electricity in the billboard big time.
It is amazing that overnight a whole city can take up cycling, more
than any criticaster has achieved; in two months over 5,5 million
times these bicycles were used.
I think this populist campaign is unwarranted. It would be na?ve if we
would condone this not very bright action.
The car free movement as well as the pro environment movement should
say NO to these silly initiatives of these Parisian protesters.
Pascal J.W. van den Noort
Velo Mondial
http://velomondial.blogspot.com
From ianfiddies at hotmail.com Mon Oct 8 07:18:14 2007
From: ianfiddies at hotmail.com (Ian Fiddies)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 22:18:14 +0000
Subject: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] RE: Re: RE: Pollution in Paris...
from Bicycles
In-Reply-To: <013701c8092b$2d831c30$9600000a@MPBV>
References: <4706D6BD.6070907@greenidea.info>
<011001c80921$8d098040$9600000a@MPBV> <47094EFC.9000307@greenidea.info>
<013701c8092b$2d831c30$9600000a@MPBV>
Message-ID:
The bikes are OK, rideable but a bit heavy and I found, at least in Brussels that it was not always that easy to return them as the stations could be full. The reaction on the ground I met from other Brussels cyclists during the Critical Mass
(I was riding one) was mainly negative to the JCDecaux project. The only concrete advantage as far as I can tell is the health benefit of more people cycling. Not wanting to sound negative but providing alterative means of transport appears to lead to more travelling rather than a reduction in car use. JCDeaux are guilty of Greenwash. I love the idea of free bikes for all but just like lunches? does the end justify the means?
Ian Fiddies
From: operations@velomondial.netTo: edelman@greenidea.infoCC: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; vojta.toman@volny.cz; petr.stepanek@cityofprague.cz; sfbike@lists.riseup.net; carfree_network@lists.riseup.net; michal.krivohlavek@auto-mat.cz; maremar@volny.cz; othercine@hotmail.com; ondrej.velek@ecn.cz; office@ecf.comDate: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 23:43:35 +0200Subject: [carfree_network] RE: Re: RE: Pollution in Paris... from Bicycles
Hi Todd,
You will realize that I disagree with all the ideological stuff you wrote. I am happy that you agree with my energy saving analyses.
I am curious about possible other possible positions.
In the meantime I give you this Velo Mondial initiative:
Amsterdam never used cycling and cycling planning as a means of cleaning the air in the city. European measures now oblige Amsterdam to act. With the introduction of a 'Main Network for Emission Free Traffic' , modes of transport that do not emit, like electric cars, bike taxis, Segways, roller skates, skeelers and bicycles, will get an improved and much wider space (8 meters) to move fast in the city. As a consequence car lanes will have to be taken out to allow for emission free lanes to be built....... Provided the City Council accepts these plans.
Read more: http://velomondial.blogspot.com/2007/10/main-network-emission-free-traffic.html
Pascal J.W. van den Noort
Executive Director Velo Mondial
Velo Mondial's Blog
www.velomondial.net
www.velo.info
http://spicycles.velo.info
operations@velomondial.net
+31206270675 landline
+31627055688 mobile phone
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----Van: Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory [mailto:edelman@greenidea.info] Verzonden: zondag 7 oktober 2007 23:26Aan: Pascal van den NoortCC: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; 'Vojtech Toman'; petr.stepanek@cityofprague.cz; 'SFBIKE List List'; 'WCN list'; 'Michal Krivohlavek, Auto*Mat'; 'martin Marecek'; 'craig baldwin'; 'Ondrej Velek'; office@ecf.comOnderwerp: [carfree_network] Re: RE: Pollution in Paris... from Bicycles
Hi Pascal,
I suppose I agree with you about the energy issue. I agree with you that
the cycling part of this programme is amazing.
But if a programme like this is so important to a city why do deals have
to made that create other types of pollution, which cannot be balanced
against the energy reduction in transport? What about the content of the
billboards themselves?
I hope that every true colour in our rainbow of sustainability remembers
what solidarity means.
I hope that you also understand how closely tied together is mass
advertising and mass automobilisation.... cars are a big part of this
image war. BMW sponsoring VeloCity in Munich... four car companies
sponsoring the biggest consortium of Central, Eastern and Southeastern
European environmental foundations (one intermediary away from World
Carfree Network)... Shell, pushing oil for personal cars all over the
world while it supports BRT projects in a only couple of cities... and
JCDecaux's support of cycling in a few European cities, but working
against this in others
... these
are all pacifiers that all-too-easily find willing mouths in which it
seems the teeth are hiding.
No deals, says this criticaster.
- T
Pascal van den Noort wrote:
>
> Friends,
>
>
>
> This mass outing in Paris attacking the billboards on Friday night is
> na?ve.
>
> The way Parisians massively take up cycling, thanks to the Billboard
> Company and the Paris City Authorities, saving dramatic kilowatts of
> electricity and cleaning the air in Paris, outways the use of
> electricity in the billboard big time.
>
>
>
> It is amazing that overnight a whole city can take up cycling, more
> than any criticaster has achieved; in two months over 5,5 million
> times these bicycles were used.
>
>
>
> I think this populist campaign is unwarranted. It would be na?ve if we
> would condone this not very bright action.
>
>
>
> The car free movement as well as the pro environment movement should
> say NO to these silly initiatives of these Parisian protesters.
>
>
>
> Pascal J.W. van den Noort
>
> Velo Mondial
>
> http://velomondial.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
[carfree_network] list guidelines and unsubscribe information are found at http://www.worldcarfree.net/listservs/. Send messages for the entire list to carfree_network@lists.riseup.net. Send replies to individuals off-list.
_________________________________________________________________
Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger?
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline
From jeroen.verhoeven at foeeurope.org Mon Oct 8 18:19:34 2007
From: jeroen.verhoeven at foeeurope.org (Jeroen Verhoeven)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:19:34 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] RE: Re: RE: Pollution in Paris...
from Bicycles
In-Reply-To: <013701c8092b$2d831c30$9600000a@MPBV>
References: <4706D6BD.6070907@greenidea.info>
<011001c80921$8d098040$9600000a@MPBV>
<47094EFC.9000307@greenidea.info>
<013701c8092b$2d831c30$9600000a@MPBV>
Message-ID: <4709F626.3040608@foeeurope.org>
Hi,
I think Ian raised an important question, wheter or not the Paris cyclo
initiative went to together with a decrease of the number of car
traffic.Does anybody has data on that?
Of course it is nice to have many more people cycling, but as Ian
mentioned that DOES NOT necessarily means that there are less cars.
In Brussels we see that politicians tend to become more willing to
invest in cycle infrastructure, but they do not dare to install measures
focussed to decrease the car traffic, while it is clear that there is no
way around it, you can do everything you want to promote cycling, but
there will be no real decrease in car traffic unless there are measures
specifically designed to decrease car traffic.
Of course the outcome of an evaluation of an initiative such as the
cyclo initiatives in Paris depends on what you expect it to do,
increasing cycling or decreasing car traffic.
Cheers,
Jeroen
Pascal van den Noort wrote:
>
> Hi Todd,
>
>
>
> You will realize that I disagree with all the ideological stuff you
> wrote. I am happy that you agree with my energy saving analyses.
>
> I am curious about possible other possible positions.
>
>
>
> In the meantime I give you this Velo Mondial initiative:
>
> Amsterdam never used cycling and cycling planning as a means of
> cleaning the air in the city. European measures now oblige Amsterdam
> to act. With the introduction of a 'Main Network for Emission Free
> Traffic'
>
> , modes of transport that do not emit, like electric cars, bike taxis,
> Segways, roller skates, skeelers and bicycles, will get an improved
> and much wider space (8 meters) to move fast in the city. As a
> consequence car lanes will have to be taken out to allow for emission
> free lanes to be built....... Provided the City Council accepts these
> plans.
>
> Read more:
> http://velomondial.blogspot.com/2007/10/main-network-emission-free-traffic.html
>
>
>
>
> Pascal J.W. van den Noort
>
> Executive Director Velo Mondial
>
>
>
> Velo Mondial's Blog
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> www.velomondial.net
>
> www.velo.info
>
> http://spicycles.velo.info
>
> operations@velomondial.net
>
> +31206270675 landline
>
> +31627055688 mobile phone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory [mailto:edelman@greenidea.info]
> Verzonden: zondag 7 oktober 2007 23:26
> Aan: Pascal van den Noort
> CC: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; 'Vojtech Toman';
> petr.stepanek@cityofprague.cz; 'SFBIKE List List'; 'WCN list'; 'Michal
> Krivohlavek, Auto*Mat'; 'martin Marecek'; 'craig baldwin'; 'Ondrej
> Velek'; office@ecf.com
> Onderwerp: [carfree_network] Re: RE: Pollution in Paris... from Bicycles
>
>
>
> Hi Pascal,
>
>
>
> I suppose I agree with you about the energy issue. I agree with you that
>
> the cycling part of this programme is amazing.
>
>
>
> But if a programme like this is so important to a city why do deals have
>
> to made that create other types of pollution, which cannot be balanced
>
> against the energy reduction in transport? What about the content of the
>
> billboards themselves?
>
>
>
> I hope that every true colour in our rainbow of sustainability remembers
>
> what solidarity means.
>
>
>
> I hope that you also understand how closely tied together is mass
>
> advertising and mass automobilisation.... cars are a big part of this
>
> image war. BMW sponsoring VeloCity in Munich... four car companies
>
> sponsoring the biggest consortium of Central, Eastern and Southeastern
>
> European environmental foundations (one intermediary away from World
>
> Carfree Network)... Shell, pushing oil for personal cars all over the
>
> world while it supports BRT projects in a only couple of cities... and
>
> JCDecaux's support of cycling in a few European cities, but working
>
> against this in others
>
> ... these
>
> are all pacifiers that all-too-easily find willing mouths in which it
>
> seems the teeth are hiding.
>
>
>
> No deals, says this criticaster.
>
>
>
> - T
>
>
>
> Pascal van den Noort wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Friends,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > This mass outing in Paris attacking the billboards on Friday night is
>
> > na?ve.
>
> >
>
> > The way Parisians massively take up cycling, thanks to the Billboard
>
> > Company and the Paris City Authorities, saving dramatic kilowatts of
>
> > electricity and cleaning the air in Paris, outways the use of
>
> > electricity in the billboard big time.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It is amazing that overnight a whole city can take up cycling, more
>
> > than any criticaster has achieved; in two months over 5,5 million
>
> > times these bicycles were used.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I think this populist campaign is unwarranted. It would be na?ve if we
>
> > would condone this not very bright action.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The car free movement as well as the pro environment movement should
>
> > say NO to these silly initiatives of these Parisian protesters.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Pascal J.W. van den Noort
>
> >
>
> > Velo Mondial
>
> >
>
> > http://velomondial.blogspot.com
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Todd Edelman
>
> Director
>
> Green Idea Factory
>
>
>
> Korunn? 72
>
> CZ-10100 Praha 10
>
> Czech Republic
>
>
>
> Skype: toddedelman
>
> ++420 605 915 970
>
> ++420 222 517 832
>
>
>
> edelman@greenidea.eu
>
> http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
>
> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>
>
>
> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
>
> www.worldcarfree.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [carfree_network] list guidelines and unsubscribe information are
> found at http://www.worldcarfree.net/listservs/. Send messages for the
> entire list to carfree_network@lists.riseup.net. Send replies to
> individuals off-list.
>
--
Jeroen Verhoeven
Car Fuel Efficiency Campaign
Friends of the Earth Europe
T: +32.2542.61.01
skype: jeroen_verhoeven (Brussels)
Mobile: +32.477.46.31.81
From lwright at vivacities.org Mon Oct 8 21:40:19 2007
From: lwright at vivacities.org (Lloyd Wright)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 05:40:19 -0700
Subject: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] Re: Re: Re: RE: Pollution in Paris...
from Bicycles
In-Reply-To: <4709752F.40201@gmail.com>
References: <4706D6BD.6070907@greenidea.info>
<011001c80921$8d098040$9600000a@MPBV> <47094EFC.9000307@greenidea.info>
<013701c8092b$2d831c30$9600000a@MPBV> <4709752F.40201@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20071008054019.6zcy6l63z74sog48@www.vivacities.org>
Well, there is another way. It is called public financing.
It is ironic that Paris has principally used taxpayer revenues for
some of the largest municipal roadway investments in the world,
including massive spending on tunnels. Why does car-based
infrastructure receive the benefit of general taxpayers while
NMT-based infrastructure has to done through private means?
By my calculation, the bicycles provided to date by the advertising
firm represents an investment of approximately 1 million euros. This
is equal to about 1 km of roadway construction for cars. It is equal
to about 5% of the cost of 1 km of a roadway tunnel in Paris.
Undoubtedly, Velib is a wonderful project, even with the associated
visual pollution. However, I am sure we would agree that it probably
would have been a better project if constructed through public funding
without all the advertising.
I recently saw an interesting quote: "In the future, the only
difference between the wealthy and the poor will be the amount of
advertising one is subjected to."
Perhaps the future has arrived.
Best,
Lloyd
Quoting "Carlos F. Pardo" :
> Hi,
>
> I would love to hear anyone's ideas on how this situation can be
> solved. That is, how could you develop a massive project such as
> Velib without funding from big organizations? If we found
> alternatives to this, I would definitely go with Todd's argument.
> Otherwise, we may just keep waiting for a holy and fully green funder
> that can provide the funds to develop a project like Velib. I would
> think that, if we put forward a criticism, it would also be useful to
> hear a counterproposal to solve that problem being criticized.
> However, I thank Todd for his eternal vigilance!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator GTZ -
> Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 93A # 14-17 of
> 708 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel/fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3)
> 15 296 0662 carlos.pardo@sutp.org www.sutp.org
>
From eric.britton at free.fr Mon Oct 8 23:35:24 2007
From: eric.britton at free.fr (eric.britton)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:35:24 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Paying for your City Bike
Message-ID: <003f01c809b8$786ed120$694c7360$@britton@free.fr>
It occurred to me that this from the in-process Greening of Paris ? Vol 1 V?lib? draft might also be of use in the context of this latest round of ?discussions? about V?lib? and $$$. Comments as always, etc. Eric Britton
3.7 Paying for your ?V?lib??
Lyons, Paris and other cities that have cut deals with advertizing companies who are today supplying them with high quality city bike systems against contractual access to public space have made an enormous contribution to the environment and life quality in their cities. But as has been seen, these are not the only ways to fund such a project.
At the very least the first imperative is to learn from their experience (see above) and if you decide to go the street advertisement route, the best thing we can recommend is for you to create two transparent separate contracts for the two very different ends of the deal. It is my view that there can be no argument against this.
Then there is the matter of the city paying for it, as it does for at least a portion of public transport costs and just about all of the cost involved in building and maintaining the road system and all the rest that supports it. Certainly the relatively low levels of cost involved for these projects relative to traditional investments in the sector should make this a relatively easy call.
The key of course will be to have a firm grasp of not only the costs but also of the benefits to the city and its citizens. To get a handle on this, it should be possible in most cases to make some simple calculations drawing on available data and rule of thumb estimates for your city, so that you at least have a handle on the dimensions involved.
Let me make a quick and dirty first calculation of how that might work based on a couple of conceptual figures. If, for example, only 1% of the daily trips of the full system in Paris (estimates to be on the order of 200,000-plus) were direct substitutes for taking say my car, and if we rough-guess the global external cost figure of a 3 km trip made during the day from cold start-up at ? 1.50, the net annual benefit to the city would be something on the order of ? 2 million. [1]
But of course any such calculation would do well to go far beyond this very rough first step, because there are enormous other benefits to the community as will be clear. But for now let me leave you with the thought that if indeed you can come up with convincing numbers for these benefits, then this starts to make it clear that there may be other ways and other reasons for paying for this terrific public service.
Certainly the bottom line of this is that you will do well to look into other financing routes before you make your final decision.
_____
[1] We have invited a number of international colleagues to have a close look at this first crude cut, and will be factoring back into this section their additional information and refinements.
From c_bradshaw at rogers.com Tue Oct 9 03:42:57 2007
From: c_bradshaw at rogers.com (Chris Bradshaw)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:42:57 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] Re: Re: Re: RE: Pollution
in Paris...from Bicycles
References: <4706D6BD.6070907@greenidea.info><011001c80921$8d098040$9600000a@MPBV>
<47094EFC.9000307@greenidea.info><013701c8092b$2d831c30$9600000a@MPBV>
<4709752F.40201@gmail.com>
<20071008054019.6zcy6l63z74sog48@www.vivacities.org>
Message-ID: <077901c809db$14ec7df0$0202a8c0@acer56fb35423d>
This information about billboard-advertising concessions from the City of
Paris puts this othewise noble project into a different light. I thought it
might have had some advertising _on_ the bicycles themselves. But, no, the
promoters wanted far more.
There is a real fight by advertisers to get more access to the urban
visibility "spectrum." People using transit have long "enjoyed" benches at
transit stop advertising covering the whole seat-back, or illuminated
advertising on the oncoming-traffic sides of transit shelters in colder
climes.
The city must consider the trade-offs. It is not only about the energy used
by the lighting of the billboards, but the amount of distraction that they
cause, the might result in collisions, including the very people using the
bikes.
Also, the scale of the advertising implies that they are being viewed from
afar, rather than being down at street level, close to pedestrians who need
little illumination other than that provided by street lighting (although,
street "grime" needs to be cleaned off the surface regularly). Such
large-scale installations also cut out the visibility of the naturally lit
sky.
Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa
From operations at velomondial.net Tue Oct 9 22:42:31 2007
From: operations at velomondial.net (Pascal van den Noort)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 15:42:31 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Pollution in
Paris... from Bicycles
In-Reply-To: <115109.22554.qm@web50304.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <115109.22554.qm@web50304.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <006d01c80a7a$4e044650$9600000a@MPBV>
Big US Cities Invest in Bike Mobility
SAN FRANCISCO, USA - Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. will decide this month to enter a proposed US$ 306 mn (? 201 mn) contract with the city of San Francisco. It will give the company advertising rights on transit shelters and would require the company to set up a bike-sharing program if the city opts for one. Like New York, Boston and Chicago, San Francisco paves the way to improve bike
Pascal J.W. van den Noort
Executive Director Velo Mondial
Velo Mondial's Blog
www.velomondial.net
www.velo.info
http://spicycles.velo.info
operations@velomondial.net
+31206270675 landline
+31627055688 mobile phone
_____
Van: Chris Parker [mailto:conductorchris@yahoo.com]
Verzonden: maandag 8 oktober 2007 15:35
Aan: jeroen.verhoeven@foeeurope.org; operations@velomondial.net
CC: edelman@greenidea.info; Global 'South' Sustainable Transport; Vojtech Toman; petr.stepanek@cityofprague.cz; SFBIKE List List; WCN list; Michal Krivohlavek, Auto*Mat; martin Marecek; craig baldwin; Ondrej Velek; office@ecf.com; ben bellekens
Onderwerp: [carfree_network] Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Pollution in Paris... from Bicycles
<< I think Ian raised an important question, wheter or not the Paris cyclo
initiative went to together with a decrease of the number of car
traffic.Does anybody has data on that? >>
Yesterday I read an article which stated there had been a 4% drop in auto traffic in Paris since the bike program started this summer.
That seems small, but it's pretty significant.
(I forget if it was New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor or a paper in London - I read them all)
Christopher
(from Vermont, but writing from New York City)
From litman at vtpi.org Wed Oct 10 21:20:05 2007
From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:20:05 -0700
Subject: [sustran] Re: cost to a city of a single say 3 km. car trip during
the day?
In-Reply-To: <001b01c80974$bd6a0f40$383e2dc0$@britton@free.fr>
References: <001b01c80974$bd6a0f40$383e2dc0$@britton@free.fr>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20071010050720.070e9748@mail.islandnet.com>
Our report, "Transportation Cost And Benefit
Analysis" (http://www.vtpi.org/tca ) provides a
framework for calculating these costs, extensive
references, estimates of these costs, and a
spreadsheet to automate cost calculations. For
information on municipal government borne costs, see:
David Anderson and Gerard McCullough (2000), The
Full Cost of Transportation in the Twin Cities
Region, Center for Transportation Studies,
University of Minnesota (www1.umn.edu/cts).
PSRC (1996), The Costs of Transportation;
Expenditures on Surface Transportation in the
Central Puget Sound Region for 1995, Puget Sound
Regional Council (www.psrc.org).
David Urbanczyk and Jeanette Corlett (1995), The
Cost of Driving in the Chicago Metropolitan
Region, Metropolitan Planning Council (Chicago), Working Paper No. 2.
ICLEI (1997), Uncovering Auto Subsidies:
Calculating How Much Your Local Government Spends
Subsidizing Cars, ICLEI
(www.iclei.org/co2/auto/cars.htm).
Martin Wachs (2003), Improving Efficiency and
Equity in Transportation Finance, Brookings
Institution
(www.brookings.edu),
Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy
(www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/wachstransportation.htm).
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman
At 11:30 PM 10/7/2007, eric.britton wrote:
>1. What is the cost to a city - to your city? - of a single say 3 km.
>car trip during the day?
>
>a. For the usual mix: including explicit to the city costs (I guess
>that might be mainly road maintenance but there may be others that do not
>come immediately to mind) -- and also of course the environmental and other
>external costs.
>
>b. I understand that most of the costs will be in the latter categories
>- and I understand as well that these are not for the most part born by the
>city (as an accounting unit).
>
>c. But still if I am a responsible 21st century mayor, I would want to
>know that number because it would help me make a lot of good decisions.
>
>d. It might be handy to see these in a bit of detail, but it is really
>the bottom line number (and its explanation) that holds the key
>
>2. It would be great if you could lend a hand with this.
>
>3. And BTW, if I know this, then I can start to play with it in order
>to think about how the city might take an active role in financing a city
>bike project such as V?lib' or the one your mayor may be thinking about.
>
>
>
>Your good help in this will be your own reward,
>
>
>
>;-)
>
>
>
>PS. Again, if the Greening of Paris series and the in-process V?lib' policy
>brief interest you at all, this is to let you know that the latter is being
>updated about twice a day and that you can find it on the left menu at
>http://www.invent.newmobility.org. As indicated earlier, comments, etc. are
>warmly welcome. It looks as if we will have this fully in the bag by the end
>of the week, but it already is a pretty good read (I am told).
>
>
Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity?
From lwright at vivacities.org Fri Oct 12 04:17:27 2007
From: lwright at vivacities.org (Lloyd Wright)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:17:27 -0500
Subject: [sustran] Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
Message-ID: <000401c80c3b$60bc5c20$6500a8c0@Nikita>
Given the recent exchange regarding Paris Velib's proliferation of
outdoor advertising, I thought the following article might be of
interest.
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9963268
Outdoor advertising
Visual pollution
Oct 11th 2007
>From The Economist print edition
Advertising firms fret over billboard bans
?THE ban on outdoor advertising in S?o Paulo is illegal and we will
prove this,? says Paul Meyer, chief operating officer of America's Clear
Channel Outdoor, the world's biggest outdoor-advertising company. The
councillors of Brazil's biggest city passed an ordinance banning
billboards last September, and Clear Channel is suing to have it
overturned. Mr Meyer says his firm's lawyers are confident that it will
be declared unconstitutional. ?The destruction of a business would
certainly be against the law in America,? he adds.
Yet bans on billboards exist in other parts of the world?even America.
Vermont, Maine, Hawaii and Alaska all prohibit them, as do some 1,500
towns. In Europe, the Norwegian city of Bergen does the same and many
others are imposing severe restrictions on billboards: the mayor of
Moscow, for example, is about to introduce regulation to reduce their
number and size.
Even so, no big city had ever imposed a complete ban on billboards
before S?o Paulo. The ?Clean City? law also bans ads on taxis and buses
and imposes strict limits on shopfront signs. Previously, most of S?o
Paulo's billboards had been erected without permission, although Clear
Channel had spent some $2m to comply with pre-ban rules on outdoor ads.
S?o Paulo is now ad-free. Many inhabitants of the metropolis of 11m
think their city is prettier as a result. Inspired by its success, Rio
de Janeiro, Bras?lia and Porto Alegre and even Buenos Aires, capital of
Brazil's neighbour Argentina, are discussing measures to reduce or ban
outdoor ads.
?This might only be the beginning,? warns Jean-Fran?ois Decaux, chairman
of JCDecaux, the second-biggest outdoor advertising company. In his view
local companies must work together to pull down illegal billboards.
Otherwise many other cities, especially in emerging economies, will be
tempted to follow the Brazilian example.
For Robert Weissman of Commercial Alert, a lobby group, S?o Paulo's move
is excellent news. Public space must not be abused for private
commercial purposes, he says. Yet Mr Decaux argues that outdoor
advertisers pay municipal authorities good money for the use of public
space. They sometimes also provide cities with bus shelters, public loos
and so forth in exchange for the right to place advertisements on them.
This trade gives outdoor advertisers and local authorities a strong
incentive to work with one another. Messrs Decaux and Meyer say they are
in favour of good regulation and strong enforcement. They point out that
the proliferation of illegal billboards is bad for business because it
distracts attention from legal ones. And the more legal advertising
there is, the more reluctant city governments will be to part with the
revenue and services it brings.
Regardless of the outcome of Clear Channel's lawsuit, S?o Paulo may well
reintroduce advertising one day, for just those sorts of reasons. City
governments, after all, are almost always short of cash?and it is no
exception.
Lloyd Wright
Executive Director
Viva
Robles 653 y Av. Amazonas
Oficinas 601-602-603
Quito
Ecuador
Tel. +593 2 255 1492
Mobile +593 9 577 6500
Fax +1 877 350 0910
Email lwright@vivacities.org
Web www.vivacities.org
"Viva...changing the world one street at a time."
From whook at itdp.org Fri Oct 12 04:37:01 2007
From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:37:01 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Re: Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
In-Reply-To: <000401c80c3b$60bc5c20$6500a8c0@Nikita>
Message-ID: <000001c80c3e$18eb0420$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81>
It has been a largely popular move in sao paulo, though i personally feel it
is another example of what frequently happens in politics where instead of
setting up some optimal and sensible regulatory structure the govt goes from
one extreme of no regulation to another ezxtreme. same mayor may pull down
trolleybus wires because of visual pollution but with less savory impacts on
other types of pollution. Velib deal w Decaux supposedly cut down the total
number of billboards by some percentage, making the remaining ones more
lucrative. TransMillenio as an agency now earning half its money from add
revenue.
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Lloyd Wright
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:17 PM
To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; 'WCN list'
Subject: [sustran] Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
Given the recent exchange regarding Paris Velib's proliferation of
outdoor advertising, I thought the following article might be of
interest.
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9963268
Outdoor advertising
Visual pollution
Oct 11th 2007
>From The Economist print edition
Advertising firms fret over billboard bans
?THE ban on outdoor advertising in S?o Paulo is illegal and we will
prove this,? says Paul Meyer, chief operating officer of America's Clear
Channel Outdoor, the world's biggest outdoor-advertising company. The
councillors of Brazil's biggest city passed an ordinance banning
billboards last September, and Clear Channel is suing to have it
overturned. Mr Meyer says his firm's lawyers are confident that it will
be declared unconstitutional. ?The destruction of a business would
certainly be against the law in America,? he adds.
Yet bans on billboards exist in other parts of the world?even America.
Vermont, Maine, Hawaii and Alaska all prohibit them, as do some 1,500
towns. In Europe, the Norwegian city of Bergen does the same and many
others are imposing severe restrictions on billboards: the mayor of
Moscow, for example, is about to introduce regulation to reduce their
number and size.
Even so, no big city had ever imposed a complete ban on billboards
before S?o Paulo. The ?Clean City? law also bans ads on taxis and buses
and imposes strict limits on shopfront signs. Previously, most of S?o
Paulo's billboards had been erected without permission, although Clear
Channel had spent some $2m to comply with pre-ban rules on outdoor ads.
S?o Paulo is now ad-free. Many inhabitants of the metropolis of 11m
think their city is prettier as a result. Inspired by its success, Rio
de Janeiro, Bras?lia and Porto Alegre and even Buenos Aires, capital of
Brazil's neighbour Argentina, are discussing measures to reduce or ban
outdoor ads.
?This might only be the beginning,? warns Jean-Fran?ois Decaux, chairman
of JCDecaux, the second-biggest outdoor advertising company. In his view
local companies must work together to pull down illegal billboards.
Otherwise many other cities, especially in emerging economies, will be
tempted to follow the Brazilian example.
For Robert Weissman of Commercial Alert, a lobby group, S?o Paulo's move
is excellent news. Public space must not be abused for private
commercial purposes, he says. Yet Mr Decaux argues that outdoor
advertisers pay municipal authorities good money for the use of public
space. They sometimes also provide cities with bus shelters, public loos
and so forth in exchange for the right to place advertisements on them.
This trade gives outdoor advertisers and local authorities a strong
incentive to work with one another. Messrs Decaux and Meyer say they are
in favour of good regulation and strong enforcement. They point out that
the proliferation of illegal billboards is bad for business because it
distracts attention from legal ones. And the more legal advertising
there is, the more reluctant city governments will be to part with the
revenue and services it brings.
Regardless of the outcome of Clear Channel's lawsuit, S?o Paulo may well
reintroduce advertising one day, for just those sorts of reasons. City
governments, after all, are almost always short of cash?and it is no
exception.
Lloyd Wright
Executive Director
Viva
Robles 653 y Av. Amazonas
Oficinas 601-602-603
Quito
Ecuador
Tel. +593 2 255 1492
Mobile +593 9 577 6500
Fax +1 877 350 0910
Email lwright@vivacities.org
Web www.vivacities.org
"Viva...changing the world one street at a time."
--------------------------------------------------------
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 edelman at greenidea.info Fri Oct 12 04:40:51 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:40:51 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: [carfree_network] Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
In-Reply-To: <000401c80c3b$60bc5c20$6500a8c0@Nikita>
References: <000401c80c3b$60bc5c20$6500a8c0@Nikita>
Message-ID: <470E7C43.40807@greenidea.info>
Thanks for posting this, Lloyd.
The sense of entitlement of the COO of Clear Channel is so disgusting...
"destruction of a business would certainly be against the law..." !!
What a joke, and he made this statement in The Economist. Their backs
are literally... up against a wall.
- T
p.s. Does someone have pictures of any JCDecaux or Clear Channel
billboards in "Bikes for Billboards" towns which have anti-environmental
content (aside from the visual blight)? It is also not too late to send
in examples of self-damaging ads on public transport... UITP is having a
conference about marketing in Spain in about a month and I am going to
see if some of the samples I have collecting will be helpful to them....
Lloyd Wright wrote:
> Given the recent exchange regarding Paris Velib's proliferation of
> outdoor advertising, I thought the following article might be of interest.
>
>
> http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9963268
>
> Outdoor advertising
>
>
> Visual pollution
>
> Oct 11th 2007
> From /The Economist/ print edition
>
>
> Advertising firms fret over billboard bans... [...]
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From edelman at greenidea.info Fri Oct 12 05:14:57 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:14:57 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
In-Reply-To: <000001c80c3e$18eb0420$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81>
References: <000001c80c3e$18eb0420$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81>
Message-ID: <470E8441.8000901@greenidea.info>
Hi Walter,
Walter Hook wrote:
> It has been a largely popular move in sao paulo, though i personally feel it
> is another example of what frequently happens in politics where instead of
> setting up some optimal and sensible regulatory structure the govt goes from
> one extreme of no regulation to another ezxtreme.
CAN you please tell me how a place free of advertising is "extreme"?
> same mayor may pull down
> trolleybus wires because of visual pollution but with less savory impacts on
> other types of pollution.
GOOD point, but there are solutions for getting electricity or power
from things besides overhead lines, for trams... and buses.
> Velib deal w Decaux supposedly cut down the total
> number of billboards by some percentage, making the remaining ones more
> lucrative.
LESS of bad thing, if that is true.
> TransMillenio as an agency now earning half its money from add
> revenue.
>
PLEASE refer to Lloyd's email from the other day about public financing
and don't forget to take your anti-pragmatism/pro-solidarity vitamins.
- T
p.s. Could someone confirm Lloyd's estimate of Velib costing EUR 1
million to install in Paris? That figure seems low, but, if true, it is
about half of the price of ONE new tram or light-rail vehicle.
p.p.s. For perspective, this
is a Colombian
Air Force Kfir fighter bought used from the Israeli Air Force. The price
new was 4.5 million dollars.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
> Of Lloyd Wright
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:17 PM
> To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; 'WCN list'
> Subject: [sustran] Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
>
> Given the recent exchange regarding Paris Velib's proliferation of
> outdoor advertising, I thought the following article might be of
> interest.
>
> http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9963268
>
> Outdoor advertising
>
>
> Visual pollution
>
>
> Oct 11th 2007
> >From The Economist print edition
>
[...]
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From whook at itdp.org Fri Oct 12 05:46:34 2007
From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:46:34 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Re: Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
In-Reply-To: <470E8441.8000901@greenidea.info>
Message-ID: <000901c80c47$d0ce6e20$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81>
Well, I am all for knowing the dirty details, but its hard to get good
things implemented, and easy to criticize. The velib program is perhaps the
most important thing to happen in cycling in a long time.
In nyc my local activist friends on the 'privy council' killed a similar
Decaux deal in NYC swapping add kiosks for public toilets. Their campaign
was hilarious, but naturally they (and others) killed the add kiosks and we
still don?t have any decent public toilets. (i think there is one left in
herald square). Is it impossible to out in decent public toilets without
billboards? Of course? Does it happen? No. why? Because its probably a
pain the bureaucratic ass and who wants to go through all the hassle unless
there's some big carrot there?
Probably you don?t have to have a lot of public billboards to have a good
bike sharing program, but on the other hand, the fact remains that to date
the largest scale bike sharing program in the world was linked to this
advertising deal, and those projects not linked to similar deals did not
reach the same scope and scale as quickly. Sometimes to make things
successful the scale and scope of the project has to be bulked up to attract
big firms able to do a big scale project.
Should we be upset if Bechtel starts building BRT projects? I think,
rather, it is the surest sign that we are winning.
Personally, not all adds bother me equally. In the scheme of things, is this
sort of visual pollution really something to get our knickers in a twist
about? Was worth it to see Sting on a bike, no? What is New York's times
square without the adds? Maybe I have kind of trashy taste, what can I say.
I sort of go for that Blade Runner look.
w
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:15 PM
Cc: deboulonneurs.paris@no-log.org; Jana Krcm?rov?; Dave Holladay; 'WCN
list'; 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'
Subject: [sustran] Re: Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
Hi Walter,
Walter Hook wrote:
> It has been a largely popular move in sao paulo, though i personally feel
it
> is another example of what frequently happens in politics where instead of
> setting up some optimal and sensible regulatory structure the govt goes
from
> one extreme of no regulation to another ezxtreme.
CAN you please tell me how a place free of advertising is "extreme"?
> same mayor may pull down
> trolleybus wires because of visual pollution but with less savory impacts
on
> other types of pollution.
GOOD point, but there are solutions for getting electricity or power
from things besides overhead lines, for trams... and buses.
> Velib deal w Decaux supposedly cut down the total
> number of billboards by some percentage, making the remaining ones more
> lucrative.
LESS of bad thing, if that is true.
> TransMillenio as an agency now earning half its money from add
> revenue.
>
PLEASE refer to Lloyd's email from the other day about public financing
and don't forget to take your anti-pragmatism/pro-solidarity vitamins.
- T
p.s. Could someone confirm Lloyd's estimate of Velib costing EUR 1
million to install in Paris? That figure seems low, but, if true, it is
about half of the price of ONE new tram or light-rail vehicle.
p.p.s. For perspective, this
is a Colombian
Air Force Kfir fighter bought used from the Israeli Air Force. The price
new was 4.5 million dollars.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
> Of Lloyd Wright
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:17 PM
> To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; 'WCN list'
> Subject: [sustran] Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
>
> Given the recent exchange regarding Paris Velib's proliferation of
> outdoor advertising, I thought the following article might be of
> interest.
>
> http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9963268
>
> Outdoor advertising
>
>
> Visual pollution
>
>
> Oct 11th 2007
> >From The Economist print edition
>
[...]
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
--------------------------------------------------------
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 schipper at wri.org Fri Oct 12 05:47:19 2007
From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:47:19 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Re: Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
References: <000901c80c47$d0ce6e20$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81>
Message-ID: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C9BF072@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local>
When my father ran a campaign against pay toilets in Los Angeles in 1963/4, he had these slogans:
"Get behind the movement"
And
"Wipe out pay toilets".
He once went on a widely viewed local TV station and as he came on stage he asked the host "do you have change for 1 dollar"
In short, these things have to be done with tongue in cheek.
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Walter Hook
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:47 PM
To: edelman@greenidea.info
Cc: deboulonneurs.paris@no-log.org; 'Jana Krcm?rov?'; 'Dave Holladay'; 'WCN list'; 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'
Subject: [sustran] Re: Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
Well, I am all for knowing the dirty details, but its hard to get good
things implemented, and easy to criticize. The velib program is perhaps the
most important thing to happen in cycling in a long time.
In nyc my local activist friends on the 'privy council' killed a similar
Decaux deal in NYC swapping add kiosks for public toilets. Their campaign
was hilarious, but naturally they (and others) killed the add kiosks and we
still don't have any decent public toilets. (i think there is one left in
herald square). Is it impossible to out in decent public toilets without
billboards? Of course? Does it happen? No. why? Because its probably a
pain the bureaucratic ass and who wants to go through all the hassle unless
there's some big carrot there?
Probably you don't have to have a lot of public billboards to have a good
bike sharing program, but on the other hand, the fact remains that to date
the largest scale bike sharing program in the world was linked to this
advertising deal, and those projects not linked to similar deals did not
reach the same scope and scale as quickly. Sometimes to make things
successful the scale and scope of the project has to be bulked up to attract
big firms able to do a big scale project.
Should we be upset if Bechtel starts building BRT projects? I think,
rather, it is the surest sign that we are winning.
Personally, not all adds bother me equally. In the scheme of things, is this
sort of visual pollution really something to get our knickers in a twist
about? Was worth it to see Sting on a bike, no? What is New York's times
square without the adds? Maybe I have kind of trashy taste, what can I say.
I sort of go for that Blade Runner look.
w
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:15 PM
Cc: deboulonneurs.paris@no-log.org; Jana Krcm?rov?; Dave Holladay; 'WCN
list'; 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'
Subject: [sustran] Re: Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
Hi Walter,
Walter Hook wrote:
> It has been a largely popular move in sao paulo, though i personally feel
it
> is another example of what frequently happens in politics where instead of
> setting up some optimal and sensible regulatory structure the govt goes
from
> one extreme of no regulation to another ezxtreme.
CAN you please tell me how a place free of advertising is "extreme"?
> same mayor may pull down
> trolleybus wires because of visual pollution but with less savory impacts
on
> other types of pollution.
GOOD point, but there are solutions for getting electricity or power
from things besides overhead lines, for trams... and buses.
> Velib deal w Decaux supposedly cut down the total
> number of billboards by some percentage, making the remaining ones more
> lucrative.
LESS of bad thing, if that is true.
> TransMillenio as an agency now earning half its money from add
> revenue.
>
PLEASE refer to Lloyd's email from the other day about public financing
and don't forget to take your anti-pragmatism/pro-solidarity vitamins.
- T
p.s. Could someone confirm Lloyd's estimate of Velib costing EUR 1
million to install in Paris? That figure seems low, but, if true, it is
about half of the price of ONE new tram or light-rail vehicle.
p.p.s. For perspective, this
is a Colombian
Air Force Kfir fighter bought used from the Israeli Air Force. The price
new was 4.5 million dollars.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
> Of Lloyd Wright
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:17 PM
> To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; 'WCN list'
> Subject: [sustran] Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
>
> Given the recent exchange regarding Paris Velib's proliferation of
> outdoor advertising, I thought the following article might be of
> interest.
>
> http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9963268
>
> Outdoor advertising
>
>
> Visual pollution
>
>
> Oct 11th 2007
> >From The Economist print edition
>
[...]
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
--------------------------------------------------------
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').
--------------------------------------------------------
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 bruun at seas.upenn.edu Fri Oct 12 06:12:05 2007
From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:12:05 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Re: Sao Paulo trolley catenary
In-Reply-To: <470E8441.8000901@greenidea.info>
References: <000001c80c3e$18eb0420$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81>
<470E8441.8000901@greenidea.info>
Message-ID: <20071011171205.5u32zgn8gkg440os@webmail.seas.upenn.edu>
Todd:
There aren't really options to overhead catenary for long routes. One
can install batteries or an ICE for use for short distances. Concepts
involving ground pickup aren't proven reliable yet, especially in snow.
As far as the visual blight from trolley catenary goes, it is minimal.
There can sometimes be some clutter at an intersection where lines
cross and turns are made. There is also a good side to the visibility
of catenary -- it adds a sense of permanence just like rails, and it
also indicates which roads have frequent service.
Eric Bruun
Quoting "Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory" :
> Hi Walter,
>
> Walter Hook wrote:
>> It has been a largely popular move in sao paulo, though i personally feel it
>> is another example of what frequently happens in politics where instead of
>> setting up some optimal and sensible regulatory structure the govt goes from
>> one extreme of no regulation to another ezxtreme.
> CAN you please tell me how a place free of advertising is "extreme"?
>
>> same mayor may pull down
>> trolleybus wires because of visual pollution but with less savory impacts on
>> other types of pollution.
> GOOD point, but there are solutions for getting electricity or power
> from things besides overhead lines, for trams... and buses.
>> Velib deal w Decaux supposedly cut down the total
>> number of billboards by some percentage, making the remaining ones more
>> lucrative.
> LESS of bad thing, if that is true.
>
>> TransMillenio as an agency now earning half its money from add
>> revenue.
>>
>
> PLEASE refer to Lloyd's email from the other day about public financing
> and don't forget to take your anti-pragmatism/pro-solidarity vitamins.
>
> - T
>
> p.s. Could someone confirm Lloyd's estimate of Velib costing EUR 1
> million to install in Paris? That figure seems low, but, if true, it is
> about half of the price of ONE new tram or light-rail vehicle.
>
> p.p.s. For perspective, this
> is a Colombian
> Air Force Kfir fighter bought used from the Israeli Air Force. The price
> new was 4.5 million dollars.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org
>> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
>> Of Lloyd Wright
>> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:17 PM
>> To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; 'WCN list'
>> Subject: [sustran] Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
>>
>> Given the recent exchange regarding Paris Velib's proliferation of
>> outdoor advertising, I thought the following article might be of
>> interest.
>>
>> http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9963268
>>
>> Outdoor advertising
>>
>>
>> Visual pollution
>>
>>
>> Oct 11th 2007
>> >From The Economist print edition
>>
> [...]
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Todd Edelman
> Director
> Green Idea Factory
>
> Korunn? 72
> CZ-10100 Praha 10
> Czech Republic
>
> Skype: toddedelman
> ++420 605 915 970
> ++420 222 517 832
>
> edelman@greenidea.eu
> http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>
> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
> www.worldcarfree.net
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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 edelman at greenidea.info Fri Oct 12 06:26:11 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:26:11 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: Sao Paulo trolley catenary
In-Reply-To: <20071011171205.5u32zgn8gkg440os@webmail.seas.upenn.edu>
References: <000001c80c3e$18eb0420$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> <470E8441.8000901@greenidea.info>
<20071011171205.5u32zgn8gkg440os@webmail.seas.upenn.edu>
Message-ID: <470E94F3.1080606@greenidea.info>
Hi,
bruun@seas.upenn.edu wrote:
> Todd:
>
> There aren't really options to overhead catenary for long routes.
RIGHT, for emission-free transport.
> One
> can install batteries or an ICE for use for short distances.
I AM sorry, what's ICE? Batteries and ultracapacitors are having some
success as far as I understand.... in order to eliminate overhead lines
in small historical areas.
> Concepts
> involving ground pickup aren't proven reliable yet, especially in snow.
>
RIGHT
> As far as the visual blight from trolley catenary goes, it is minimal.
>
IN Prague the visual blight from caternary for trams gets pretty intense
sometimes... but at least it has a useful purpose unlike some other
blights.
> There can sometimes be some clutter at an intersection where lines
> cross and turns are made. There is also a good side to the visibility
> of catenary -- it adds a sense of permanence just like rails, and it
> also indicates which roads have frequent service.
>
Seriously, things are getting more flexible (batteries, ultracaps,
hybrid systems with diesel or especially gas generator sets) and I think
prices will go down and quality will go up. Batteries might start to
become standard in trams - some trolley buses have small engines to get
through electrified areas - which will be a benefit for aesthetic
reasons and also give maintenance people more flexibility to repair
overhead lines in the middle of the day, etc.
Thanks,
T
> Eric Bruun
>
>
> Quoting "Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory" :
>
>
>> Hi Walter,
>>
>> Walter Hook wrote:
>>
>>> It has been a largely popular move in sao paulo, though i personally feel it
>>> is another example of what frequently happens in politics where instead of
>>> setting up some optimal and sensible regulatory structure the govt goes from
>>> one extreme of no regulation to another ezxtreme.
>>>
>> CAN you please tell me how a place free of advertising is "extreme"?
>>
>>
>>> same mayor may pull down
>>> trolleybus wires because of visual pollution but with less savory impacts on
>>> other types of pollution.
>>>
>> GOOD point, but there are solutions for getting electricity or power
>> from things besides overhead lines, for trams... and buses.
>>
>>> Velib deal w Decaux supposedly cut down the total
>>> number of billboards by some percentage, making the remaining ones more
>>> lucrative.
>>>
>> LESS of bad thing, if that is true.
>>
>>
>>> TransMillenio as an agency now earning half its money from add
>>> revenue.
>>>
>>>
>> PLEASE refer to Lloyd's email from the other day about public financing
>> and don't forget to take your anti-pragmatism/pro-solidarity vitamins.
>>
>> - T
>>
>> p.s. Could someone confirm Lloyd's estimate of Velib costing EUR 1
>> million to install in Paris? That figure seems low, but, if true, it is
>> about half of the price of ONE new tram or light-rail vehicle.
>>
>> p.p.s. For perspective, this
>> is a Colombian
>> Air Force Kfir fighter bought used from the Israeli Air Force. The price
>> new was 4.5 million dollars.
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org
>>> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
>>> Of Lloyd Wright
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:17 PM
>>> To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; 'WCN list'
>>> Subject: [sustran] Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
>>>
>>> Given the recent exchange regarding Paris Velib's proliferation of
>>> outdoor advertising, I thought the following article might be of
>>> interest.
>>>
>>> http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9963268
>>>
>>> Outdoor advertising
>>>
>>>
>>> Visual pollution
>>>
>>>
>>> Oct 11th 2007
>>> >From The Economist print edition
>>>
>>>
>> [...]
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------
>>
>> Todd Edelman
>> Director
>> Green Idea Factory
>>
>> Korunn? 72
>> CZ-10100 Praha 10
>> Czech Republic
>>
>> Skype: toddedelman
>> ++420 605 915 970
>> ++420 222 517 832
>>
>> edelman@greenidea.eu
>> http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
>> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>>
>> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
>> www.worldcarfree.net
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> 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').
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From tr_saranathan at hotmail.com Fri Oct 12 09:37:51 2007
From: tr_saranathan at hotmail.com (tr_saranathan)
Date: 11 Oct 2007 17:37:51 -0700
Subject: [sustran] Do we like the same books?
Message-ID: <20071012003821.8C1062DE74@mx-list.jca.ne.jp>
I just joined Shelfari to connect with other book lovers. Come see the books I love and see if we have any in common. Then pick my next book so I can keep on reading.
Click below to join my group of friends on Shelfari!
http://www.shelfari.com/Register.aspx?ActivityId=25074718&InvitationCode=df51f080-28c9-4f6b-b2c9-21ac884431eb
tr_saranathan
Shelfari is a free site that lets you share book ratings and reviews with friends and meet people who have similar tastes in books. It also lets you build an online bookshelf, join book clubs, and get good book recommendations from friends. You should check it out.
--------
You have received this email because tr_saranathan (tr_saranathan@hotmail.com) directly invited you to join his/her community on Shelfari.
It is against Shelfari's policies to invite people who you don't know directly. Follow this link (http://www.shelfari.com/actions/emailoptout.aspx?email=sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org&activityid=25074718) to prevent future invitations to this address. If you believe you do not know this person, you may view (http://www.shelfari.com/trsaranathan) his/her Shelfari page or report him/her in our feedback (http://www.shelfari.com/Feedback.aspx) section.
Shelfari, 616 1st Ave #300, Seattle, WA 98104
From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Oct 12 17:11:55 2007
From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:11:55 +0200
Subject: [sustran] cost to a city of a single say 3 km. car trip during the
day?
In-Reply-To: <1e1891d10710110342v408c6a5o8e84da5cf8d4eaca@mail.gmail.com>
References: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C96FC89@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local>
<46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C9BE7EC@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local>
<1e1891d10710110342v408c6a5o8e84da5cf8d4eaca@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00e601c80ca7$ca5551c0$5efff540$@britton@ecoplan.org>
Thanks so much Alper.
What I am scratching for is some indication of the "total cost" (including
externalities) of a sample 3 km car trip made in a city center in the middle
of the day - and sure with a cold start.
I realize that there are a lot variables than need to be figured in (hey,
people have been working on this in various ways for more than three
decades, as Todd Littman's note on this points out so usefully), but what I
am looking for is one or more ballpark figures. Or some kind of qualified
range.
Here is what we can standardize to, to get us going I hope: 3 km., cold
start, average speed (say 10 kph or so, which might give us time for an
"average" parking hunt). In my mind's eye the whole thing will take on the
order of a quarter hour, one way of course.
Age, make and maintenance of car, meteorological conditions, altitude,
driver skills, city size, traffic conditions, and other such stuff will
obviously influence our number(s) - but it must be possible to be sensible
about this and use available data without someone having to do another PhD.
Here's my rough guestimate this morning to get the ball rolling on this: on
the order of a.5 Euros or call it two dollars. Not only that, I think this
may prove to be a low estimate, but maybe with more input from all of you
who know better we can nail this one down.
It's an important number!
Eric Britton
PS. I know all of you know this - but the single most important blow we can
strike for sustainability and the planet is a carbon tax. Now, I am not
working on that (since I have chosen to concentrate my limited time and
resources our narrower patch), but that's the bottom line. Believe it!
From: Alper Unal [mailto:alper.unal@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2007 12:42
To: Lee Schipper
Cc: eric.britton; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; john.shaw@dot.state.wi.us
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] cost to a city of a single
say 3 km. car trip during t he day?
Lee,
I am not sure if I understand the question, are we comparing a 3km trip with
10km trip? Are we comparing a 3km trip with cold-start versus a 10km trip
without a cold-start?
For cold-start emissions, as you know it varies a lot depending on ambient
temperature, driver aggressiveness (letting the vehicle warm up vs. trying
to warm the engine up hitting the gas as they do it in Turkey!), as well as
the condition of the catalyst (we have seen a lot of dead catalysts in
Istanbul which were 2006 model year!). I did look at some of our
measurements and the measurements say that cold -start (which is generally
assumed to be the first 200 seconds) might emit about 20-30 times higher HC
and CO, twice higher NOX and 30-40 % higher CO2 (all in g/km basis).
However, as you know generally cold-start emissions are given as grams/200
seconds rather than grams/km since vehicle might be idling during this
period.
Does this answer your question?
Best,
Alper
From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Oct 12 17:49:49 2007
From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:49:49 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
References: <000001c80c3e$18eb0420$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> <470E8441.8000901@greenidea.info>
<20071011171205.5u32zgn8gkg440os@webmail.seas.upenn.edu>
Message-ID: <00fb01c80cac$df031ad0$9d095070$@britton@ecoplan.org>
A few more pieces of the Euro puzzle from sent on by our friend Ronan taken
from recent articles in the financial press here. I rough translate and
summarize for you if necessary.
1. From La Tribune -
http://fr.biz.yahoo.com/13082007/155/velib-un-pari-risque-pour-jcdecaux.html
JCD investing 90 million Euros (high figure to date), covering all project
costs but gaining access to those 1600 on-street (sidewalk actually) panels.
Penalties for underperformance on contact specs. JCD taking a
risk/potential bath on the margins, cause they got to do it.
2. From http://www.marchespublics.net/actualite/edito.php?id=1256
? The usual V?lib? numbers + guarantee of 285 full time job-equivalents +
all costs for system to be covered by JCD for the ten years of the contract.
+ City of Paris to get all income from bikes + 3.5 Euros paid to city by JCD
year ? and all that against 1600 public advertising spaces, which someone
has figured should get them on the order of 60 million Euros/year for the
contract period. And all that with a system of penalties for failing to
meet performance goals and incentives for doing better.
The author of that piece -- Herv? Huguet, Citia, cabinet de conseil en achat
public ? makes the point that in his view the margins are very thin but that
it?s a great showcase for KCD (which for sure it is).
That?s one vantage of our ballpark. But it?s really the benefits side that
holds the bottom line (that plus the necessary separation of the deals into
separate 2 contracts). Which is where I need some help from you.
And not in our enthusiasm for a kinder better world to kill the at least
carbon-lite goose of course (as Walter Hook so wisely reminds us).
Eric Britton
From edelman at greenidea.info Fri Oct 12 18:08:23 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:08:23 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Anti-bus ad on bus shelter in South Africa
Message-ID: <470F3987.5000303@greenidea.info>
Hi,
See:
If someone knows if these shelters are owned by public transport
company, subcontractor or "partner" (e.g. JCDecaux, etc.) please let me
know. I realise that situation may have changed since 2002.
Thanks,
T
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From lwright at vivacities.org Fri Oct 12 23:41:03 2007
From: lwright at vivacities.org (Lloyd Wright)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:41:03 -0500
Subject: [sustran] Re: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
In-Reply-To: <00fb01c80cac$df031ad0$9d095070$@britton@ecoplan.org>
Message-ID: <002601c80cdd$eb807830$6500a8c0@Nikita>
It would be interesting to know how much of the 90 million euros is for
the system infrastructure and management as opposed to the cost of the
advertising. I would imagine the advertising side has both
infrastructure, management, and marketing (cost of attracting and
retaining clients) components. It would be important to separate out
the bicycle system from the advertising business to understand the
costs.
Even at 200 euros per bike, 20,000 bicycles only comes to 4 million
euros. The bicycles should have a life of perhaps 7 to 10 years. Thus,
on an amortised basis, the bikes are only about 400,000 euros per year.
Certainly, the stations are an infrastructure investment (but again with
probably a long life) and there are annual management costs.
But it is difficult to see how it comes to 90 million euros. Thus, I
suspect that the costs of advertising component must be huge. Also, I
suspect that JCD has an incentive to inflate the numbers as much as
possible to claim the goodwill of their investment.
Best,
Lloyd
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Britton [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:50 AM
To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
A few more pieces of the Euro puzzle from sent on by our friend Ronan
taken from recent articles in the financial press here. I rough
translate and summarize for you if necessary.
1. From La Tribune -
http://fr.biz.yahoo.com/13082007/155/velib-un-pari-risque-pour-jcdecaux.
html
JCD investing 90 million Euros (high figure to date), covering all
project costs but gaining access to those 1600 on-street (sidewalk
actually) panels. Penalties for underperformance on contact specs. JCD
taking a risk/potential bath on the margins, cause they got to do it.
2. From http://www.marchespublics.net/actualite/edito.php?id=1256
? The usual V?lib? numbers + guarantee of 285 full time
job-equivalents + all costs for system to be covered by JCD for the ten
years of the contract. + City of Paris to get all income from bikes +
3.5 Euros paid to city by JCD year ? and all that against 1600 public
advertising spaces, which someone has figured should get them on the
order of 60 million Euros/year for the contract period. And all that
with a system of penalties for failing to meet performance goals and
incentives for doing better.
The author of that piece -- Herv? Huguet, Citia, cabinet de conseil en
achat public ? makes the point that in his view the margins are very
thin but that it?s a great showcase for KCD (which for sure it is).
That?s one vantage of our ballpark. But it?s really the benefits side
that holds the bottom line (that plus the necessary separation of the
deals into separate 2 contracts). Which is where I need some help from
you.
And not in our enthusiasm for a kinder better world to kill the at least
carbon-lite goose of course (as Walter Hook so wisely reminds us).
Eric Britton
From whook at itdp.org Fri Oct 12 23:46:58 2007
From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:46:58 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Re: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
In-Reply-To: <002601c80cdd$eb807830$6500a8c0@Nikita>
Message-ID: <003c01c80cde$bf7889c0$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81>
We read somewhere that the bikes cost something like 3000 euros, which seems
impossible , and we could not confirm it. There is some fancy electronic
gadgetry inside them to signal mechanical failures, etc, but how could they
be so expensive? Anyone got any intel on this?
walter
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Lloyd Wright
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 10:41 AM
To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org;
NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [sustran] Re: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
It would be interesting to know how much of the 90 million euros is for
the system infrastructure and management as opposed to the cost of the
advertising. I would imagine the advertising side has both
infrastructure, management, and marketing (cost of attracting and
retaining clients) components. It would be important to separate out
the bicycle system from the advertising business to understand the
costs.
Even at 200 euros per bike, 20,000 bicycles only comes to 4 million
euros. The bicycles should have a life of perhaps 7 to 10 years. Thus,
on an amortised basis, the bikes are only about 400,000 euros per year.
Certainly, the stations are an infrastructure investment (but again with
probably a long life) and there are annual management costs.
But it is difficult to see how it comes to 90 million euros. Thus, I
suspect that the costs of advertising component must be huge. Also, I
suspect that JCD has an incentive to inflate the numbers as much as
possible to claim the goodwill of their investment.
Best,
Lloyd
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Britton [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:50 AM
To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
A few more pieces of the Euro puzzle from sent on by our friend Ronan
taken from recent articles in the financial press here. I rough
translate and summarize for you if necessary.
1. From La Tribune -
http://fr.biz.yahoo.com/13082007/155/velib-un-pari-risque-pour-jcdecaux.
html
JCD investing 90 million Euros (high figure to date), covering all
project costs but gaining access to those 1600 on-street (sidewalk
actually) panels. Penalties for underperformance on contact specs. JCD
taking a risk/potential bath on the margins, cause they got to do it.
2. From http://www.marchespublics.net/actualite/edito.php?id=1256
? The usual V?lib? numbers + guarantee of 285 full time
job-equivalents + all costs for system to be covered by JCD for the ten
years of the contract. + City of Paris to get all income from bikes +
3.5 Euros paid to city by JCD year ? and all that against 1600 public
advertising spaces, which someone has figured should get them on the
order of 60 million Euros/year for the contract period. And all that
with a system of penalties for failing to meet performance goals and
incentives for doing better.
The author of that piece -- Herv? Huguet, Citia, cabinet de conseil en
achat public ? makes the point that in his view the margins are very
thin but that it?s a great showcase for KCD (which for sure it is).
That?s one vantage of our ballpark. But it?s really the benefits side
that holds the bottom line (that plus the necessary separation of the
deals into separate 2 contracts). Which is where I need some help from
you.
And not in our enthusiasm for a kinder better world to kill the at least
carbon-lite goose of course (as Walter Hook so wisely reminds us).
Eric Britton
--------------------------------------------------------
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 info at autofrei-wohnen.de Sat Oct 13 00:57:28 2007
From: info at autofrei-wohnen.de (Autofrei Wohnen)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:57:28 +0200
Subject: [sustran] "cost of about $1,
300 apiece" // Re: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
References: <003c01c80cde$bf7889c0$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81>
Message-ID: <023101c80ce8$c61e0020$0100a8c0@Markus>
Dear Walter,
in this german wikipedia
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrradverleih#Paris
I found this information:
"Die Fahrräder sind aus ungarischer Produktion (Marke Mercier) und kosten
1.300 Dollar pro Stück."
= The Bikes are from hungarian production (Mercier Company) (1) and cost
1,300 Dollar each (2).
Sources:
(1) in german: http://trapa.twoday.net/stories/3521778/comment
(2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301753.html
("... JCDecaux will provide all of the bikes (at a cost of about $1,300
apiece) and build the pickup/drop-off stations. ...") interesting article
(March 24, 2007; Page A10) with more details
*
My first thought was the one Lloyd expressed, "why don`t they use the taxes
?! They use taxes for everything else. Why not for this programme ???"
This discussion was really interesting (thank you), and I understand it this
way: In the beginning of something "new" politicians are unsure if they make
the point with it. so they test it. They think: "If it fails, I can say to
the people: `It was not financed with your taxes, it was a separate thing.´"
I think, the anger comes from that point: Why is everything
"new-sustainable-etc-pp" always only an extra / separated "programme", why
is
that not the conventional standard ? ...
However, I think, like you and Pascal, it is good that they started it, with
whatever money, in the meaning of "one small step towards more carfree
spaces".
But, nevertheless, I like Todd`s "threatened by convenience and pragmatism"
in his blog ... we need to keep this in mind, but don`t let us overwhelme by
this attitude ...
best wishes from Berlin,
Markus
www.autofrei-wohnen.de/homeEngl.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Hook"
To: ; ;
;
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 4:46 PM
Subject: [sustran] Re: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
We read somewhere that the bikes cost something like 3000 euros, which seems
impossible , and we could not confirm it. There is some fancy electronic
gadgetry inside them to signal mechanical failures, etc, but how could they
be so expensive? Anyone got any intel on this?
walter
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Lloyd Wright
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 10:41 AM
To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org;
NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [sustran] Re: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
It would be interesting to know how much of the 90 million euros is for
the system infrastructure and management as opposed to the cost of the
advertising. I would imagine the advertising side has both
infrastructure, management, and marketing (cost of attracting and
retaining clients) components. It would be important to separate out
the bicycle system from the advertising business to understand the
costs.
Even at 200 euros per bike, 20,000 bicycles only comes to 4 million
euros. The bicycles should have a life of perhaps 7 to 10 years. Thus,
on an amortised basis, the bikes are only about 400,000 euros per year.
Certainly, the stations are an infrastructure investment (but again with
probably a long life) and there are annual management costs.
But it is difficult to see how it comes to 90 million euros. Thus, I
suspect that the costs of advertising component must be huge. Also, I
suspect that JCD has an incentive to inflate the numbers as much as
possible to claim the goodwill of their investment.
Best,
Lloyd
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Britton [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org]
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:50 AM
To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
A few more pieces of the Euro puzzle from sent on by our friend Ronan
taken from recent articles in the financial press here. I rough
translate and summarize for you if necessary.
1. From La Tribune -
http://fr.biz.yahoo.com/13082007/155/velib-un-pari-risque-pour-jcdecaux.
html
JCD investing 90 million Euros (high figure to date), covering all
project costs but gaining access to those 1600 on-street (sidewalk
actually) panels. Penalties for underperformance on contact specs. JCD
taking a risk/potential bath on the margins, cause they got to do it.
2. From http://www.marchespublics.net/actualite/edito.php?id=1256
- The usual Vélib' numbers + guarantee of 285 full time
job-equivalents + all costs for system to be covered by JCD for the ten
years of the contract. + City of Paris to get all income from bikes +
3.5 Euros paid to city by JCD year - and all that against 1600 public
advertising spaces, which someone has figured should get them on the
order of 60 million Euros/year for the contract period. And all that
with a system of penalties for failing to meet performance goals and
incentives for doing better.
The author of that piece -- Hervé Huguet, Citia, cabinet de conseil en
achat public - makes the point that in his view the margins are very
thin but that it's a great showcase for KCD (which for sure it is).
That's one vantage of our ballpark. But it's really the benefits side
that holds the bottom line (that plus the necessary separation of the
deals into separate 2 contracts). Which is where I need some help from
you.
And not in our enthusiasm for a kinder better world to kill the at least
carbon-lite goose of course (as Walter Hook so wisely reminds us).
Eric Britton
--------------------------------------------------------
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').
--------------------------------------------------------
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 eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Oct 13 01:18:05 2007
From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:18:05 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
In-Reply-To: <003c01c80cde$bf7889c0$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81>
References: <002601c80cdd$eb807830$6500a8c0@Nikita>
<003c01c80cde$bf7889c0$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81>
Message-ID: <034701c80ceb$7dabad30$79030790$@britton@ecoplan.org>
Well Walter, 3k Euros/bike x 20,600 bikes would give us ca. Euros 60 MM.
That's maybe a number.
But I see that not just for the bikes but for the whole investment, bikes,
stations, software, electronics, development costs, construction, buying of
services, hiring and training of labor, and more.
Bear in mind that while they took all they had done in Lyons as their
starting point, they decided to bet the house on Paris (rightfully so I
would say). And when you check out the details of the system you will
appreciate how very complex and challenging the whole operation is.
If you asked me for my best bet today, I would say Euros 40 MM +/- 15. But
that's only a guess.
Now that's a huge spread of course, but it would not be surprising if their
figure also included the expenses for putting up, etc. their 1600 new signs
(and see the report, they are huge . . . , and that indeed is one of the
problems.) But at this point, who knows?
Annual operations and management costs will run, to the best of my memory
this afternoon, about 10-15% of the original investment, covering as you may
recall some 350 full-time job equivalents (they have quite a few part-time
personnel).
And BTW, I count these mainly low skill jobs (but with pretty high social
recognition for what they are dong) as an important plus. Quite unlike most
transportation projects in the pas that have traditionally made "labor
saving" one of their main objectives.
We will learn a lot more about this in the months ahead, but the ultimate
bottom line is - I insist - the huge benefits. And this we also have to get
our arms around.
All of which points up the importance of separating the two contracts and
giving greater insights as to costs, etc.
Yes we want to golden egg. No we do not want to slaughter that perfectly
good goose. (Of course there are always those who just like killing geese,
but I hope not too many of our dear colleagues here.)
Eric Britton
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Hook [mailto:whook@itdp.org]
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2007 16:47
To: lwright@vivacities.org; eric.britton@ecoplan.org;
sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
We read somewhere that the bikes cost something like 3000 euros, which seems
impossible , and we could not confirm it. There is some fancy electronic
gadgetry inside them to signal mechanical failures, etc, but how could they
be so expensive? Anyone got any intel on this?
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Lloyd Wright
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 10:41 AM
To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org;
NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [sustran] Re: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
It would be interesting to know how much of the 90 million euros is for the
system infrastructure and management as opposed to the cost of the
advertising. I would imagine the advertising side has both infrastructure,
management, and marketing (cost of attracting and retaining clients)
components. It would be important to separate out the bicycle system from
the advertising business to understand the costs.
Even at 200 euros per bike, 20,000 bicycles only comes to 4 million euros.
The bicycles should have a life of perhaps 7 to 10 years. Thus, on an
amortised basis, the bikes are only about 400,000 euros per year.
Certainly, the stations are an infrastructure investment (but again with
probably a long life) and there are annual management costs.
But it is difficult to see how it comes to 90 million euros. Thus, I
suspect that the costs of advertising component must be huge. Also, I
suspect that JCD has an incentive to inflate the numbers as much as possible
to claim the goodwill of their investment.
Best,
Lloyd
From edelman at greenidea.info Sat Oct 13 02:20:01 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:20:01 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: "cost of about $1,
300 apiece" // Re: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
In-Reply-To: <023101c80ce8$c61e0020$0100a8c0@Markus>
References: <003c01c80cde$bf7889c0$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81>
<023101c80ce8$c61e0020$0100a8c0@Markus>
Message-ID: <470FACC1.1090201@greenidea.info>
Autofrei Wohnen wrote:
> Dear Walter,
>
> in this german wikipedia
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrradverleih#Paris
> I found this information:
>
> "Die Fahrr?der sind aus ungarischer Produktion (Marke Mercier) und kosten
> 1.300 Dollar pro St?ck."
>
> = The Bikes are from hungarian production (Mercier Company) (1) and cost
> 1,300 Dollar each (2).
>
> Sources:
> (1) in german: http://trapa.twoday.net/stories/3521778/comment
> (2)
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301753.html
> ("... JCDecaux will provide all of the bikes (at a cost of about $1,300
> apiece) and build the pickup/drop-off stations. ...") interesting article
> (March 24, 2007; Page A10) with more details
>
OKAY, thats about EUR 900.... x 20000 bikes is EUR 18 million... even
including other technology and start up costs, how do we come to the EUR
90 million figure mentioned in an earlier email? JCD is going to be
making EUR 60 million per year on ads... more than three times the cost
of the bikes.
> *
>
> My first thought was the one Lloyd expressed, "why don`t they use the taxes
> ?! They use taxes for everything else. Why not for this programme ???"
> This discussion was really interesting (thank you), and I understand it this
> way: In the beginning of something "new" politicians are unsure if they make
> the point with it. so they test it. They think: "If it fails, I can say to
> the people: `It was not financed with your taxes, it was a separate thing.?"
>
BUT we only have an example of a system started by selling off public
space... I am curious if any city authorities are thinking about funding
a system like this in a different way... San Francisco... Chicago...
does JCD own the patents etc. on the technology? That would give even
less incentive for a city to do it on their own.
> I think, the anger comes from that point: Why is everything
> "new-sustainable-etc-pp" always only an extra / separated "programme", why
> is
> that not the conventional standard ? ...
>
> However, I think, like you and Pascal, it is good that they started it, with
> whatever money, in the meaning of "one small step towards more carfree
> spaces".
>
CARFREE spaces? OR replacement mobility? Remember that most of us drone
on and on "the bike is faster than the car at short distances"... there
was some mention a few days ago that car use has gone down in Paris... I
am curious if the modal share of walking has changed. If bikes replace
feet, is that good? Sure, people are free to choose their truly
sustainable mode... or are they? The wheel, no matter what is moving it,
is very sexy.
> But, nevertheless, I like Todd`s "threatened by convenience and pragmatism"
> in his blog ... we need to keep this in mind, but don`t let us overwhelme by
> this attitude ...
>
WALK around your city... every cultural event is "partner this" and
"partner that", nearly every surface covered with consumer
encouragement. When do we say "no more!" Should we cover the moon with
a Coca Cola logo so everyone on earth can ride bikes? "It is okay,
because JCDecaux will guarantee that the Earth will not be hit by a
meteor for ten years".... sorry, I am not looking forward to where
"Bikes for Billboards" is going in regards to its bad side.
Remember also that the whole system is also a big advert for JCDecaux
itself, and after a number of months or years - we haven't yet come up
with the correct figure - they will be making a huge amount, millions
every year, for their facilitation of visual pollution and whatever
content is included.
I like the good side of this deal, so build one less
and buy
100,000 Velib-type bikes instead and with the spare change pay JCDecaux
a licensing fee for their clever work.
- T
> best wishes from Berlin,
> Markus
> www.autofrei-wohnen.de/homeEngl.html
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Walter Hook"
> To: ; ;
> ;
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 4:46 PM
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
>
>
> We read somewhere that the bikes cost something like 3000 euros, which seems
> impossible , and we could not confirm it. There is some fancy electronic
> gadgetry inside them to signal mechanical failures, etc, but how could they
> be so expensive? Anyone got any intel on this?
>
> walter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
> Of Lloyd Wright
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 10:41 AM
> To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org;
> NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
>
> It would be interesting to know how much of the 90 million euros is for
> the system infrastructure and management as opposed to the cost of the
> advertising. I would imagine the advertising side has both
> infrastructure, management, and marketing (cost of attracting and
> retaining clients) components. It would be important to separate out
> the bicycle system from the advertising business to understand the
> costs.
>
> Even at 200 euros per bike, 20,000 bicycles only comes to 4 million
> euros. The bicycles should have a life of perhaps 7 to 10 years. Thus,
> on an amortised basis, the bikes are only about 400,000 euros per year.
> Certainly, the stations are an infrastructure investment (but again with
> probably a long life) and there are annual management costs.
>
> But it is difficult to see how it comes to 90 million euros. Thus, I
> suspect that the costs of advertising component must be huge. Also, I
> suspect that JCD has an incentive to inflate the numbers as much as
> possible to claim the goodwill of their investment.
>
> Best,
>
> Lloyd
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Britton [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:50 AM
> To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
>
>
>
> A few more pieces of the Euro puzzle from sent on by our friend Ronan
> taken from recent articles in the financial press here. I rough
> translate and summarize for you if necessary.
>
>
>
> 1. From La Tribune -
> http://fr.biz.yahoo.com/13082007/155/velib-un-pari-risque-pour-jcdecaux.
> html
> JCD investing 90 million Euros (high figure to date), covering all
> project costs but gaining access to those 1600 on-street (sidewalk
> actually) panels. Penalties for underperformance on contact specs. JCD
> taking a risk/potential bath on the margins, cause they got to do it.
>
>
>
> 2. From http://www.marchespublics.net/actualite/edito.php?id=1256
>
> - The usual V?lib' numbers + guarantee of 285 full time
> job-equivalents + all costs for system to be covered by JCD for the ten
> years of the contract. + City of Paris to get all income from bikes +
> 3.5 Euros paid to city by JCD year - and all that against 1600 public
> advertising spaces, which someone has figured should get them on the
> order of 60 million Euros/year for the contract period. And all that
> with a system of penalties for failing to meet performance goals and
> incentives for doing better.
>
> The author of that piece -- Herv? Huguet, Citia, cabinet de conseil en
> achat public - makes the point that in his view the margins are very
> thin but that it's a great showcase for KCD (which for sure it is).
>
>
>
> That's one vantage of our ballpark. But it's really the benefits side
> that holds the bottom line (that plus the necessary separation of the
> deals into separate 2 contracts). Which is where I need some help from
> you.
>
>
>
> And not in our enthusiasm for a kinder better world to kill the at least
> carbon-lite goose of course (as Walter Hook so wisely reminds us).
>
>
>
> Eric Britton
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From andrew at benbikes.org.za Fri Oct 12 23:39:31 2007
From: andrew at benbikes.org.za (Andrew M Wheeldon)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:39:31 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: Anti-bus ad on bus shelter in South Africa
References: <470F3987.5000303@greenidea.info>
Message-ID: <009301c80cdd$b38c4800$8a01a8c0@Wheeldon>
That article and photo submitted by Lloyd really speaks volumes. I
personally have not seen that anywhere in SA so maybe it is a thing of the
past. The present plan of the Nat Dept of Transport is to promote cycling
and Public transport so they would act against those types of messages.
all the best
Andrew M Wheeldon
MSc Sports Management (Leicester UK)
Managing Director: Bicycling Empowerment Network (BEN)
Resident Representative: Bicycle Partnership Program - I-CE
Tel +27 21 7133634; Fax +27 21 7127492
Cell +27 82 5989178 - andrew@benbikes.org.za
199 Main Rd Tokai Cape South Africa 7945
PO Box 31561 Tokai Cape South Africa 7966
www.benbikes.org.za - BEN: Promoting the bicycle to address low cost
transport and improve health
www.cycling.nl - ICE: Advocacy and planning for bicycle-friendly cities
www.worldcarfree.net - World CarFree Network Member Organisation
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory"
Cc: "Andrew Wheeldon" ; "Sustran Resource Centre"
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:08 AM
Subject: Anti-bus ad on bus shelter in South Africa
> Hi,
>
> See:
>
>
> If someone knows if these shelters are owned by public transport company,
> subcontractor or "partner" (e.g. JCDecaux, etc.) please let me know. I
> realise that situation may have changed since 2002.
>
> Thanks,
> T
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Todd Edelman
> Director
> Green Idea Factory
>
> Korunn? 72
> CZ-10100 Praha 10
> Czech Republic
>
> Skype: toddedelman
> ++420 605 915 970
> ++420 222 517 832
>
> edelman@greenidea.eu
> http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>
> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
> www.worldcarfree.net
>
>
From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Oct 12 15:52:02 2007
From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:52:02 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Velib' costs - some conceptual "arithmetic" for your eyes
and brains to improve on
In-Reply-To: <20071011171205.5u32zgn8gkg440os@webmail.seas.upenn.edu>
References: <000001c80c3e$18eb0420$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> <470E8441.8000901@greenidea.info>
<20071011171205.5u32zgn8gkg440os@webmail.seas.upenn.edu>
Message-ID: <005701c80c9c$6b5fc890$421f59b0$@britton@ecoplan.org>
>> p.s. Could someone confirm Lloyd's estimate of Velib costing EUR 1
million to install in Paris? That figure seems low, but, if true, it is
about half of the price of ONE new tram or light-rail vehicle.<<
Hmm. Okay. That?s a pretty good number for starters; it makes a certain kind of sense, as Lloyd as said in putting it in front of us for comment.
But let me run the following through you all together with a certain number of friends who are directly involved in various bits of the city bike business in different places ? and invite you to come back to share your comments, etc. on this. We can perhaps in this way stumble toward if not an exact truth at least a broad understanding of what this is supposed to be all about. The real bottom line.
In the last months I have in our interviews for the V?lib? portion of our Greening of Paris project run into figures in various places which run from ? 20 to 80 million for the 20k bikes plus infrastructure + year one operations. My insider sources in Paris lean toward the former, but the only one who really knows is JCD, and the nature of their contract keeps their numbers outside of prying eyes.
Which by the way is why in our just-about to be completed Policy Brief on V?lib? , we are strongly supporting the argument for a complete separation of the two contacts: one for the public amenity, another for the outdoor advertising, both with clear specs and as much transparency as you can wring from the implementing partner. (Somebody please tell this to the folks in San Francisco before they sign that contract, though I am rather sure they have already figured that one out for themselves.)
If you play a bit with the numbers we know and based on the stats which are taking shape, you can see over on the benefits end that there has to be some very considerable advantages to the city and its people if we get 20,000 bikes x 10 trips/day (minimum I would say) x 365. Let?s see that?s something like 70 million healthy low-fat city-friendly carbon-free trips per year. Hmm. Let?s keep playing (which I guess I am free to do since I am not a transportation scientist).
Let?s now wander briefly over to the revenues side a bit, and assume that this project is as Lloyd has so well suggested a thoroughly public endeavor. (BTW, Denis Baupin who is just about the most important single shaker behind this project in Paris is talking about the ?municipalization" of this and other public services?).
If we assume say 500,000 annual subscribers at ? 30/yr., this gives us ? 1.5 MM in our pot. And, just for fun, let?s kick in a modest ? 500k for other rental revenues over the year (I am only wildly guessing). Not a huge number certainly, but one that can make a bit of a dent at the annual operating costs of keeping those 20k bikes on the street.
Anybody who takes a public bike is getting amenity, life quality and certainly economic value out of it ? which should warm any mayor?s heart ? as well as the sheer mobility values out of it. And what we know is that most people hop onto a bus or a public bike not for the joy of having the wind stream through their flowing hair, but because they need to access something. Which is an important argument if anyone tries to diminish the value of these trips saying that they have been ?created? by the new supply and would not have taken otherwise. So what? That?s not the point. These good people (that?s you and me BTW) are hopping on their bikes because they have a purpose in mind and a way of getting the job done that they chose to make use of. That?s the bottom line.
Here?s another conceptual number for you. Suppose a cold start 3 km car trip in the day has external costs to the community and the planet on the order of, say, ? 1.5 each. And that, say again, something on the order of 2% of our total 70 MM bike trips are replacing one of those cars. Well, that?s another non-negligible ? 2MM in our kitty.
Etc. etc.
Comments? Better stabs at this? Howls of laughter because this is not transportation science?
Go for it!
Eric Britton
Collaborative Problem Solving on The Commons
V?lib? and The Greening of Paris ready for your comments at http://www.invent.newmobility.org
From Ian.Wingrove at london.gov.uk Sat Oct 13 01:40:40 2007
From: Ian.Wingrove at london.gov.uk (Ian Wingrove)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:40:40 +0100
Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
In-Reply-To: <034701c80ceb$7dabad30$79030790$@britton@ecoplan.org>
Message-ID:
I am unclear on the setting up costs - but the running costs are
estimated at 300 Euros a bike, or six million Euros a year. JC Decaux
also paid Paris a respectable amount of money for the licence. It is
msaid to be a bit of a lost leader, in order that they can win other
contracts. It remains a commercial venture, a successful one and a
scheme which has many more upsides than downsides.
Whether a City takes the advertising approach offered by Decaux will
depend upon how much tax payers money the politics are willing to spend
on running it as purely a cycling scheme - minus the advertising.
JC Decaux operate 2 other schemes, one in Vienna which has been
operational for 3 years and one in Lyon, France which has been
operational for 2 years. Both schemes have been extremely successful
since being implemented.
* Launched in 2005
* 3000 bicycles from 250 stations, 9m hires, 19.7m kms
travelled.
* 15,000 hires a day and almost 60,000 subscribers by the end of
the first year
* Each bike is used between 7 and 15 times a day by different
users
* Three quarters of all rentals are for journeys of less than 15
minutes
* A 45% increase in bicycles on the road
2,400 tonnes of CO2 saved a year
-----Original Message-----
From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Britton
Sent: 12 October 2007 17:18
To: 'Walter Hook'; lwright@vivacities.org;
sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
Well Walter, 3k Euros/bike x 20,600 bikes would give us ca.
Euros 60 MM. That's maybe a number.
But I see that not just for the bikes but for the whole
investment, bikes, stations, software, electronics, development costs,
construction, buying of services, hiring and training of labor, and
more.
Bear in mind that while they took all they had done in Lyons as
their starting point, they decided to bet the house on Paris (rightfully
so I would say). And when you check out the details of the system you
will appreciate how very complex and challenging the whole operation
is.
If you asked me for my best bet today, I would say Euros 40 MM
+/- 15. But that's only a guess.
Now that's a huge spread of course, but it would not be
surprising if their figure also included the expenses for putting up,
etc. their 1600 new signs (and see the report, they are huge . . . ,
and that indeed is one of the problems.) But at this point, who knows?
Annual operations and management costs will run, to the best of
my memory this afternoon, about 10-15% of the original investment,
covering as you may recall some 350 full-time job equivalents (they have
quite a few part-time personnel).
And BTW, I count these mainly low skill jobs (but with pretty
high social recognition for what they are dong) as an important plus.
Quite unlike most transportation projects in the pas that have
traditionally made "labor saving" one of their main objectives.
We will learn a lot more about this in the months ahead, but the
ultimate bottom line is - I insist - the huge benefits. And this we also
have to get our arms around.
All of which points up the importance of separating the two
contracts and giving greater insights as to costs, etc.
Yes we want to golden egg. No we do not want to slaughter that
perfectly good goose. (Of course there are always those who just like
killing geese, but I hope not too many of our dear colleagues here.)
Eric Britton
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Hook [mailto:whook@itdp.org]
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2007 16:47
To: lwright@vivacities.org; eric.britton@ecoplan.org;
sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [sustran] Re: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
We read somewhere that the bikes cost something like 3000 euros,
which seems
impossible , and we could not confirm it. There is some fancy
electronic
gadgetry inside them to signal mechanical failures, etc, but how
could they
be so expensive? Anyone got any intel on this?
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org]
On Behalf Of Lloyd Wright
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 10:41 AM
To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org; sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org;
NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [sustran] Re: Velib' costs and benefits - Note 2
It would be interesting to know how much of the 90 million euros
is for the system infrastructure and management as opposed to the cost
of the advertising. I would imagine the advertising side has both
infrastructure, management, and marketing (cost of attracting and
retaining clients) components. It would be important to separate out
the bicycle system from the advertising business to understand the
costs.
Even at 200 euros per bike, 20,000 bicycles only comes to 4
million euros. The bicycles should have a life of perhaps 7 to 10
years. Thus, on an amortised basis, the bikes are only about 400,000
euros per year.
Certainly, the stations are an infrastructure investment (but
again with probably a long life) and there are annual management costs.
But it is difficult to see how it comes to 90 million euros.
Thus, I suspect that the costs of advertising component must be huge.
Also, I suspect that JCD has an incentive to inflate the numbers as much
as possible to claim the goodwill of their investment.
Best,
Lloyd
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic
(0) Reply (via web post)
| Start a new topic
Messages
| 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?)
Yahoo! Groups
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! Finance
It's Now Personal
Guides, news,
advice & more.
HDTV Support
The official Samsung
Y! Group for HDTVs
and devices.
Yahoo! Groups
Endurance Zone
b/c every athlete
needs an edge.
.
__,_._,___
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMAIL NOTICE:
The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials.
Please read the full email notice at http://www.london.gov.uk/email-notice.jsp
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From litman at vtpi.org Sun Oct 14 19:35:47 2007
From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 03:35:47 -0700
Subject: [sustran] VTPI News - Fall 2007
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20071014033518.072d5d18@mail.islandnet.com>
-----------
VTPI NEWS
-----------
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
-------------------------------------
Fall 2007 Vol. 10, No. 4
-----------------------------------
The Victoria Transport Policy Institute is an
independent research organization dedicated to
developing innovative solutions to transportation
problems. The VTPI website (http://www.vtpi.org )
has many resources addressing a wide range of
transport planning and policy issues. VTPI also provides consulting services.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEWS
=====
Planners Press is promoting the book, "Parking
Management Best Practices," with a 15% discount
for orders this week, when purchased with James
Kushner?s "The Post-Automobile City," until
October 21. For information go to
http://www.planning.org/apastore
. Click on the 'Meet The Author' photo for an interview with Todd Litman.
"Comprehensive Evaluation of Congestion Costs and
Solutions" Planetizen Blog by Todd Litman
(http://www.planetizen.com/node/27367 ). This
short essay points out that conventional
congestion indicators tend to exaggerate
congestion costs, and are biased in favor of
highway capacity expansion over other congestion
reduction strategies. Traffic congestion is
overall a modest cost, so it would be wasteful to
implement a congestion reduction strategy that
increases other transportation costs, such as
infrastructure costs, accidents, consumer costs
or pollution, while congestion reduction
strategies that also help achieve other planning
objectives provide far more benefits to society.
'Transport Expert Todd Litman: Save Oil, Lives,
Environment' a three part series by the "Energy
Bulletin" (http://www.energybulletin.net/35342.html ).
1. Alter Car Insurance & Save Oil, Lives,
Environment (http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=335 )
2. Get Paid for NOT Driving To Work (http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=341 )
3. 'Congestion Pricing' to Include Entire Regions
(http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=345 )
"Cotter Debate on Transportation Policy and the
Environment" between Samuel Staley (Reason
Foundation) and Todd Litman (Victoria Transport
Policy Institute), held at Colby College, 8
October 2007. A Podcast of the event is available
at http://www.colby.edu/academics_cs/goldfarb .
For references see "The Future Isn?t What It Used
To Be" (http://www.vtpi.org/future.pdf ) and
"Rail Transit In America" (http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf ).
"Parking Space Tax: Is It Really Such A
Bolshevist Fantasy?" ? Chicago Transit Blog
(http://sicktransitchicago.blogspot.com/2007/10/parking-space-tax-is-it-really-such.html
).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PAYD URGENT ACTION ? YOU CAN HELP!
====================================
Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD) pricing means that a
vehicle?s insurance premiums and registration
fees are based directly on its annual mileage
(http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm79.htm ). PAYD is an
innovative, fair, cost-effective, easy way to
increase transport system efficiency, providing
many economic, social and environmental benefits.
PAYD pricing is particularly appropriate in
British Columbia because the Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) has a
mandate to maximize safety, affordability and
consumer benefits, and to reduce climate change emissions.
PAYD is receiving growing media attention
(www.news1130.com/news/topstory/article.jsp?content=20070906_151654_5792
). An Internet poll by News1130 found 61% (600)
of respondents want ICBC to offer PAYD insurance,
against 39% (376) who oppose the concept.
The Victoria Transport Policy Institute is
working to promote PAYD insurance in BC
(http://www.vtpi.org/paydbc.pdf ). You can help
by contacting ICBC CEO Paul Taylor; Minister of
Public Safety Honourable John Les; and if you
live in BC, your MLA
(www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-1-1.htm).
* Describe PAYD pricing benefits, particularly
with regard to ICBC?s stated goals (safety,
affordability, fairness), and provincial goals
(safety, energy conservation and emission
reductions, congestion reduction, physical fitness and health).
* Ask ICBC to share its research on PAYD and implement a PAYD pilot project.
* Request that PAYD be included in ICBC?s
Climate Change Secretariat submission.
* If the Corporation refuses to act, ask that their objections be explained.
Paul Taylor, President and Chief Executive Officer
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
Email: paul.taylor@icbc.com
Fax: 604-982-2440
151 West Esplanade, North Vancouver, BC V7M 3H9
Hon. John Les, Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA)
Ministry of Public Safety
Email: john.les.mla@leg.bc.ca
Fax: 604 702-5223
#1-45953 Airport Rd, Chilliwack, BC, V2P 1A3
Please contact Todd Litman (litman@vtpi.org ) if
you would like to stay informed about this issue as it develops.
USEFUL RESOURCES
=================
"Driving to Green Buildings: The Transportation
Energy Intensity of Building," Environmental
Building News
(www.buildinggreen.com
), Vol. 16, No. 9, Sept. 2007; at
www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=160901a.xml
.
This article points out that about twice as much
energy is consumed in commuting to a typical
office building as in the buildings for heating,
cooling and lighting. It discusses the importance
of applying efficient location and transport
management to create truly green buildings, and
describes specific ways to do this.
"Increases In Greenhouse-Gas Emissions From
Highway-Widening Projects," Sightline Institute
(www.sightline.org );
at
www.sightline.org/research/energy/res_pubs/analysis-ghg-roads
. This analysis indicates that urban highway
expansion does not reduce pollution overall
because additional emissions from construction
and increased vehicle traffic quickly exceed any
reductions from reduced congestion delays.
"Saving Energy, Growing Jobs: How Environmental
Protection Promotes Economic Growth,
Profitability, Innovation, and Competition" by
David Goldstein, Bay Tree Publishers
(http://www.baytreepublish.com ); more
information at
http://www.cee1.org/resrc/news/07-02nl/09D_goldstein.html
. This readable and insightful book examines how
smart policies can reduce pollution and support
economic development by encouraging resource
efficiency, and discusses how to overcome specific barriers to such reforms.
"Debunking Cato: Why Planning in Portland Works
Better Than the Analysis of Its Chief
Neo-Libertarian Critic," Congress for New
Urbanism (www.cnu.org); at
http://www.cnu.org/node/1533 . This paper by
Professor Mike Lewyn evaluates claims in a recent
Cato Institute report, "Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn?t Work."
"Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban
Development and Climate Change," Urban Land
Institute and Smart Growth America
(www.smartgrowthamerica.org/gcindex.html ). This
book documents how key changes in land
development patterns could help reduce vehicle
greenhouse gas emissions, based on a
comprehensive review of dozens of studies by
leading urban planning researchers. It concludes
that one of the best ways to reduce vehicle
travel is compact development: building places in
which people can get from one place to another
without driving. Changing demographics, shrinking
households, rising gas prices, and lengthening
commutes are contributing to the demand for
smaller homes and lots, townhouses, and
condominiums near jobs and other activities. It
recommends specific policy changes to make green
neighborhoods more available and more affordable.
"Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner?s Guide, Report
118," Transit Cooperative Research Program, TRB
(www.trb.org ); at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_118.pdf
. This Guide provides detailed information on the
costs, impacts, and effectiveness of implementing
selected bus rapid transit (BRT) components, and
guidance of BRT system development.
"Bicycling and Walking in the U.S.: 2007
Benchmarking Report," Thunderhead Alliance
(http://www.thunderheadalliance.org/benchmarking.htm
). This is an on-going effort to collect and
analyze U.S. bicycling and walking data. This research found:
* A positive relationship between the built
environment and nonmotorized travel activity.
* Bicycle and pedestrian safety with nonmotorized travel activity.
* Higher levels of biking and walking coincide
with higher levels of adults meeting recommended
levels of daily physical activity, and lower
levels of obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please let us know if you have comments or
questions about any information in this
newsletter, or if you would like to be removed
from our email list. Please pass this newsletter
on to others who may find it useful.
Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity?
From Tramsol at aol.com Mon Oct 15 03:46:47 2007
From: Tramsol at aol.com (Tramsol at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:46:47 EDT
Subject: [sustran] Re: Sao Paulo bans outdoor advertising
Message-ID:
Todd
It is interesting to note that in Barcelona Clear Channel is providing the
bike system as a service - paid for from motoring charges rather than bait or a
poster sites deal, other sites also operate without advertising and thair
Nordic sites, like Barcelona are pressed to expand by demand.
Reviewing the existing Decaux schemes it would appear that there is a
critical density which only the Lyon and Paris schemes make any attempt to meet
(most are under 500 bikes) allowing a city to claim "Look! we're doing it too"
3 French municipal transport operations run their own city bike schemes (or
give that impression) as does one Spanish city, and 4 schemes are clearly run
by not for profit foundations, showing it does not need to be a big
expensive operation if the management detail is right.
Call-a-Bike was taken over by DB after 1year and the UK OYBike has shown a
workable model which has attracted interest from PT operators in a similar
way. OV Fiets is another system, albeit targetted very specifically at
commuters which began with a simple concept simply delivered and has brought NS on
board to grow to over 100 outlets and around 3000 bikes. The only scheme which
I am still intrigued to leran more about is bicincitta -suddenly appearing
in 12 Italian cities this summer, but with onlay a small number of hre points
and bikes.
Pondering greatly...
Dave H
From dking at csir.co.za Mon Oct 15 20:43:11 2007
From: dking at csir.co.za (David King)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:43:11 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: Anti-bus ad on bus shelter in South Africa
In-Reply-To: <009301c80cdd$b38c4800$8a01a8c0@Wheeldon>
References: <470F3987.5000303@greenidea.info>
<009301c80cdd$b38c4800$8a01a8c0@Wheeldon>
Message-ID: <47136E6D.027C.0052.0@csir.co.za>
The ad on the bus shelter is very old, probably at least 10 years, but
just recently a new tv advertisement was released in South Africa by a
certain car company where a bus user greets and says goodbye to everyone
on the bus and gets of at a car dealership where he buys his first car.
I presume the idea they are trying to create is that owning a car is the
next step on the social ladder and as soon as you can afford one, you
don't need to use public transport anymore.
David King
Researcher
Logistics&Quantitative Methods
CSIRBuilt Environment
Tel: 012 841 2985
Fax: 012 841 3037
Email: dking@csir.co.za
www.csir.co.za
>>> "Andrew M Wheeldon" 12/10/2007 16:39 >>>
That article and photo submitted by Lloyd really speaks volumes. I
personally have not seen that anywhere in SA so maybe it is a thing of
the
past. The present plan of the Nat Dept of Transport is to promote
cycling
and Public transport so they would act against those types of
messages.
all the best
Andrew M Wheeldon
MSc Sports Management (Leicester UK)
Managing Director: Bicycling Empowerment Network (BEN)
Resident Representative: Bicycle Partnership Program - I-CE
Tel +27 21 7133634; Fax +27 21 7127492
Cell +27 82 5989178 - andrew@benbikes.org.za
199 Main Rd Tokai Cape South Africa 7945
PO Box 31561 Tokai Cape South Africa 7966
www.benbikes.org.za - BEN: Promoting the bicycle to address low cost
transport and improve health
www.cycling.nl - ICE: Advocacy and planning for bicycle-friendly
cities
www.worldcarfree.net - World CarFree Network Member Organisation
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory"
Cc: "Andrew Wheeldon" ; "Sustran Resource Centre"
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:08 AM
Subject: Anti-bus ad on bus shelter in South Africa
> Hi,
>
> See:
>
>
> If someone knows if these shelters are owned by public transport
company,
> subcontractor or "partner" (e.g. JCDecaux, etc.) please let me know.
I
> realise that situation may have changed since 2002.
>
> Thanks,
> T
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Todd Edelman
> Director
> Green Idea Factory
>
> Korunn? 72
> CZ-10100 Praha 10
> Czech Republic
>
> Skype: toddedelman
> ++420 605 915 970
> ++420 222 517 832
>
> edelman@greenidea.eu
> http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>
> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
> www.worldcarfree.net
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------
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').
--
This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions, e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard.
The full disclaimer details can be found at http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html.
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner,
and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks Transtec Computers for their support.
From edelman at greenidea.info Mon Oct 15 21:36:37 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:36:37 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: Anti-bus ad on bus shelter in South Africa
In-Reply-To: <47136E6D.027C.0052.0@csir.co.za>
References: <470F3987.5000303@greenidea.info>
<009301c80cdd$b38c4800$8a01a8c0@Wheeldon>
<47136E6D.027C.0052.0@csir.co.za>
Message-ID: <47135ED5.3040806@greenidea.info>
Hi David,
Wow, thanks. If you can get me a copy of that TV ad - or at least tell
me which car company it was for so I can see if someone else put it on
You Tube, etc - it would be great. While it is not a "self-damaging
advert" per se in my definition, since a bus operator rented out
property to some advertising agency or video production company it is
clearly still "self-damaging".
The bus shelter ad is from 2002, according to Lloyd Wright, who provided
the photo.
By the way to an earlier query about ownership of the shelters in
Jo'burg I was told it was the PT authority itself.
Thanks again,
T
David King wrote:
> The ad on the bus shelter is very old, probably at least 10 years, but
> just recently a new tv advertisement was released in South Africa by a
> certain car company where a bus user greets and says goodbye to
> everyone on the bus and gets of at a car dealership where he buys his
> first car. I presume the idea they are trying to create is that owning
> a car is the next step on the social ladder and as soon as you can
> afford one, you don't need to use public transport anymore.
>
>
> *David King
> *Researcher
> /Logistics&Quantitative Methods
> /*CSIR*/ Built Environment/
> Tel: 012 841 2985
> Fax: 012 841 3037
> Email: _dking@csir.co.za_
> _www.csir.co.za_
>
> >>> "Andrew M Wheeldon" 12/10/2007 16:39 >>>
> That article and photo submitted by Lloyd really speaks volumes. I
> personally have not seen that anywhere in SA so maybe it is a thing of
> the
> past. The present plan of the Nat Dept of Transport is to promote cycling
> and Public transport so they would act against those types of messages.
>
> all the best
> Andrew M Wheeldon
>
> MSc Sports Management (Leicester UK)
> Managing Director: Bicycling Empowerment Network (BEN)
> Resident Representative: Bicycle Partnership Program - I-CE
> Tel +27 21 7133634; Fax +27 21 7127492
> Cell +27 82 5989178 - andrew@benbikes.org.za
> 199 Main Rd Tokai Cape South Africa 7945
> PO Box 31561 Tokai Cape South Africa 7966
> www.benbikes.org.za - BEN: Promoting the bicycle to address low cost
> transport and improve health
> www.cycling.nl - ICE: Advocacy and planning for bicycle-friendly cities
> www.worldcarfree.net - World CarFree Network Member Organisation
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory"
> Cc: "Andrew Wheeldon" ; "Sustran Resource Centre"
>
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:08 AM
> Subject: Anti-bus ad on bus shelter in South Africa
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > See:
> >
>
> >
> > If someone knows if these shelters are owned by public transport
> company,
> > subcontractor or "partner" (e.g. JCDecaux, etc.) please let me know. I
> > realise that situation may have changed since 2002.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > T
> >
> > --
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Todd Edelman
> > Director
> > Green Idea Factory
> >
> > Korunn? 72
> > CZ-10100 Praha 10
> > Czech Republic
> >
> > Skype: toddedelman
> > ++420 605 915 970
> > ++420 222 517 832
> >
> > edelman@greenidea.eu
> > http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
> > www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
> >
> > Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
> > www.worldcarfree.net
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
>
> --
> This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions,
> e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard.
> The full disclaimer details can be found at
> http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html.
>
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> *MailScanner* ,
> and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks Transtec Computers
> for their support.
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From lize at sustainable.org.za Mon Oct 15 21:44:18 2007
From: lize at sustainable.org.za (Lize Jennings)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:44:18 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: Anti-bus ad on bus shelter in South Africa
In-Reply-To: <47135ED5.3040806@greenidea.info>
Message-ID: <000801c80f29$1a1e5390$0720150a@lize>
Hi
I think the car advert that David is talking about is actually about
car-financing (and therefore could be a bank), but I know the car in the
advert is a Toyota - this advert was also set in Johannesburg, using the
Johannesburg Metrobuses.
Regards
Lize
Lize Jennings
Sustainable Energy Africa
Tel: 021 702 3622
Fax: 086 528 4416
Cell: 083 414 7384
E-mail: lize@sustainable.org.za
SEA Website: www.sustainable.org.za
TRAN:SIT Website : www.sustainable.org.za/transit
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+lize=sustainable.org.za@list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+lize=sustainable.org.za@list.jca.apc.org] On
Behalf Of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
Sent: 15 October 2007 02:37 PM
To: David King
Cc: Andrew M Wheeldon; Andrew Wheeldon; Sustran Resource Centre
Subject: [sustran] Re: Anti-bus ad on bus shelter in South Africa
Hi David,
Wow, thanks. If you can get me a copy of that TV ad - or at least tell
me which car company it was for so I can see if someone else put it on
You Tube, etc - it would be great. While it is not a "self-damaging
advert" per se in my definition, since a bus operator rented out
property to some advertising agency or video production company it is
clearly still "self-damaging".
The bus shelter ad is from 2002, according to Lloyd Wright, who provided
the photo.
By the way to an earlier query about ownership of the shelters in
Jo'burg I was told it was the PT authority itself.
Thanks again,
T
David King wrote:
> The ad on the bus shelter is very old, probably at least 10 years, but
> just recently a new tv advertisement was released in South Africa by a
> certain car company where a bus user greets and says goodbye to
> everyone on the bus and gets of at a car dealership where he buys his
> first car. I presume the idea they are trying to create is that owning
> a car is the next step on the social ladder and as soon as you can
> afford one, you don't need to use public transport anymore.
>
>
> *David King
> *Researcher
> /Logistics&Quantitative Methods
> /*CSIR*/ Built Environment/
> Tel: 012 841 2985
> Fax: 012 841 3037
> Email: _dking@csir.co.za_
> _www.csir.co.za_
>
> >>> "Andrew M Wheeldon" 12/10/2007 16:39 >>>
> That article and photo submitted by Lloyd really speaks volumes. I
> personally have not seen that anywhere in SA so maybe it is a thing of
> the
> past. The present plan of the Nat Dept of Transport is to promote cycling
> and Public transport so they would act against those types of messages.
>
> all the best
> Andrew M Wheeldon
>
> MSc Sports Management (Leicester UK)
> Managing Director: Bicycling Empowerment Network (BEN)
> Resident Representative: Bicycle Partnership Program - I-CE
> Tel +27 21 7133634; Fax +27 21 7127492
> Cell +27 82 5989178 - andrew@benbikes.org.za
> 199 Main Rd Tokai Cape South Africa 7945
> PO Box 31561 Tokai Cape South Africa 7966
> www.benbikes.org.za - BEN: Promoting the bicycle to address low cost
> transport and improve health
> www.cycling.nl - ICE: Advocacy and planning for bicycle-friendly cities
> www.worldcarfree.net - World CarFree Network Member Organisation
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory"
> Cc: "Andrew Wheeldon" ; "Sustran Resource Centre"
>
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:08 AM
> Subject: Anti-bus ad on bus shelter in South Africa
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > See:
> >
>
> >
> > If someone knows if these shelters are owned by public transport
> company,
> > subcontractor or "partner" (e.g. JCDecaux, etc.) please let me know. I
> > realise that situation may have changed since 2002.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > T
> >
> > --
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> > Todd Edelman
> > Director
> > Green Idea Factory
> >
> > Korunn? 72
> > CZ-10100 Praha 10
> > Czech Republic
> >
> > Skype: toddedelman
> > ++420 605 915 970
> > ++420 222 517 832
> >
> > edelman@greenidea.eu
> > http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
> > www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
> >
> > Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
> > www.worldcarfree.net
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
>
> --
> This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions,
> e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard.
> The full disclaimer details can be found at
> http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html.
>
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> *MailScanner* ,
> and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks Transtec Computers
> for their support.
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
--------------------------------------------------------
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 edelman at greenidea.info Mon Oct 15 21:46:19 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:46:19 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: Anti-bus ad on bus shelter in South Africa
In-Reply-To: <000801c80f29$1a1e5390$0720150a@lize>
References: <000801c80f29$1a1e5390$0720150a@lize>
Message-ID: <4713611B.3000202@greenidea.info>
Thanks,
T
Lize Jennings wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think the car advert that David is talking about is actually about
> car-financing (and therefore could be a bank), but I know the car in the
> advert is a Toyota - this advert was also set in Johannesburg, using the
> Johannesburg Metrobuses.
>
> Regards
> Lize
>
> Lize Jennings
> Sustainable Energy Africa
> Tel: 021 702 3622
> Fax: 086 528 4416
> Cell: 083 414 7384
> E-mail: lize@sustainable.org.za
> SEA Website: www.sustainable.org.za
> TRAN:SIT Website : www.sustainable.org.za/transit
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+lize=sustainable.org.za@list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+lize=sustainable.org.za@list.jca.apc.org] On
> Behalf Of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
> Sent: 15 October 2007 02:37 PM
> To: David King
> Cc: Andrew M Wheeldon; Andrew Wheeldon; Sustran Resource Centre
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Anti-bus ad on bus shelter in South Africa
>
> Hi David,
>
> Wow, thanks. If you can get me a copy of that TV ad - or at least tell
> me which car company it was for so I can see if someone else put it on
> You Tube, etc - it would be great. While it is not a "self-damaging
> advert" per se in my definition, since a bus operator rented out
> property to some advertising agency or video production company it is
> clearly still "self-damaging".
>
> The bus shelter ad is from 2002, according to Lloyd Wright, who provided
> the photo.
>
> By the way to an earlier query about ownership of the shelters in
> Jo'burg I was told it was the PT authority itself.
>
> Thanks again,
> T
>
>
>
> David King wrote:
>
>> The ad on the bus shelter is very old, probably at least 10 years, but
>> just recently a new tv advertisement was released in South Africa by a
>> certain car company where a bus user greets and says goodbye to
>> everyone on the bus and gets of at a car dealership where he buys his
>> first car. I presume the idea they are trying to create is that owning
>> a car is the next step on the social ladder and as soon as you can
>> afford one, you don't need to use public transport anymore.
>>
>>
>> *David King
>> *Researcher
>> /Logistics&Quantitative Methods
>> /*CSIR*/ Built Environment/
>> Tel: 012 841 2985
>> Fax: 012 841 3037
>> Email: _dking@csir.co.za_
>> _www.csir.co.za_
>>
>>
>>>>> "Andrew M Wheeldon" 12/10/2007 16:39 >>>
>>>>>
>> That article and photo submitted by Lloyd really speaks volumes. I
>> personally have not seen that anywhere in SA so maybe it is a thing of
>> the
>> past. The present plan of the Nat Dept of Transport is to promote cycling
>> and Public transport so they would act against those types of messages.
>>
>> all the best
>> Andrew M Wheeldon
>>
>> MSc Sports Management (Leicester UK)
>> Managing Director: Bicycling Empowerment Network (BEN)
>> Resident Representative: Bicycle Partnership Program - I-CE
>> Tel +27 21 7133634; Fax +27 21 7127492
>> Cell +27 82 5989178 - andrew@benbikes.org.za
>> 199 Main Rd Tokai Cape South Africa 7945
>> PO Box 31561 Tokai Cape South Africa 7966
>> www.benbikes.org.za - BEN: Promoting the bicycle to address low cost
>> transport and improve health
>> www.cycling.nl - ICE: Advocacy and planning for bicycle-friendly cities
>> www.worldcarfree.net - World CarFree Network Member Organisation
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory"
>> Cc: "Andrew Wheeldon" ; "Sustran Resource Centre"
>>
>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:08 AM
>> Subject: Anti-bus ad on bus shelter in South Africa
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> See:
>>>
>>>
> ml>
>
>>> If someone knows if these shelters are owned by public transport
>>>
>> company,
>>
>>> subcontractor or "partner" (e.g. JCDecaux, etc.) please let me know. I
>>> realise that situation may have changed since 2002.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> T
>>>
>>> --
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Todd Edelman
>>> Director
>>> Green Idea Factory
>>>
>>> Korunn? 72
>>> CZ-10100 Praha 10
>>> Czech Republic
>>>
>>> Skype: toddedelman
>>> ++420 605 915 970
>>> ++420 222 517 832
>>>
>>> edelman@greenidea.eu
>>> http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
>>> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>>>
>>> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
>>> www.worldcarfree.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> 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').
>>
>> --
>> This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright terms and conditions,
>> e-mail legal notice, and implemented Open Document Format (ODF) standard.
>> The full disclaimer details can be found at
>> http://www.csir.co.za/disclaimer.html.
>>
>>
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
>> *MailScanner* ,
>> and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks Transtec Computers
>> for their support.
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From Lnadal at itdp.org Tue Oct 16 02:40:50 2007
From: Lnadal at itdp.org (Luc Nadal)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:40:50 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Re: Velib' costs and benefits
In-Reply-To: <20071013030121.8458B2D9B5@mx-list.jca.ne.jp>
References: <20071013030121.8458B2D9B5@mx-list.jca.ne.jp>
Message-ID: <689C9F7E-D8F1-4D0B-B80A-21FD1541E798@itdp.org>
The bus shelters and other ad-bearing street furniture normally
remain the property of the contractor, who leases the land on which
they stand to the city. The magazine Nouvel Observateur reported
that JC Decaux took all its street furniture and bus shelters down
overnight after the southern city of Draguignan, revoked their
contract (Nouvel Observateur, Nov 10 1999).
>
> If someone knows if these shelters are owned by public transport
> company, subcontractor or "partner" (e.g. JCDecaux, etc.) please
> let me
> know. I realise that situation may have changed since 2002.
>
> Thanks,
> T
From edelman at greenidea.info Tue Oct 16 02:54:03 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:54:03 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: Velib' costs and benefits
In-Reply-To: <689C9F7E-D8F1-4D0B-B80A-21FD1541E798@itdp.org>
References: <20071013030121.8458B2D9B5@mx-list.jca.ne.jp>
<689C9F7E-D8F1-4D0B-B80A-21FD1541E798@itdp.org>
Message-ID: <4713A93B.9010902@greenidea.info>
Wow, now that's interesting.
Thanks,
T
Luc Nadal wrote:
> The bus shelters and other ad-bearing street furniture normally
> remain the property of the contractor, who leases the land on which
> they stand to the city. The magazine Nouvel Observateur reported
> that JC Decaux took all its street furniture and bus shelters down
> overnight after the southern city of Draguignan, revoked their
> contract (Nouvel Observateur, Nov 10 1999).
>
>
>
>
>
>> If someone knows if these shelters are owned by public transport
>> company, subcontractor or "partner" (e.g. JCDecaux, etc.) please
>> let me
>> know. I realise that situation may have changed since 2002.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> T
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From au.ables at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 19:24:17 2007
From: au.ables at gmail.com (Aurora Fe Ables)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:24:17 +0800
Subject: [sustran] Video on Metered Parking Spaces Turned into Parks
In-Reply-To: <4713A93B.9010902@greenidea.info>
References: <20071013030121.8458B2D9B5@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> <689C9F7E-D8F1-4D0B-B80A-21FD1541E798@itdp.org>
<4713A93B.9010902@greenidea.info>
Message-ID: <4714914e.12da600a.6a48.13b8@mx.google.com>
Interesting idea. :-)
I wonder how people would react to this if it was done in Manila...
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/10/15/parking.day.cnn
Best regards,
Au
Aurora Fe Ables
Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Center
Unit 3510 Robinsons-Equitable Tower,
ADB Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Metro Manila, Philippines 1605
Phone +63-2-395-2843 to 45
Fax +63-2-395-2846
Mobile +63-919-237-4338
au.ables (at) cai-asia (dot) org
au.ables (at) gmail (dot) com
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.10/1070 - Release Date: 10/14/2007
9:22 AM
From edelman at greenidea.info Wed Oct 17 08:21:29 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:21:29 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Transit pass - Best Weapon Against Climate Change?
Message-ID: <47154779.8090008@greenidea.info>
The new report released by the American Public Transportation
Association makes some interesting comparisons about various ways to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases.
Excerpt:
"While it is very important to employ environmentally-friendly household
activities, commuting by public transportation makes a more substantial
impact. An individual switching to public transit can reduce their daily
carbon emissions by 20 pounds; that?s more than 4,800 pounds in a year.
This is far greater than the many actions people are being encouraged to
take, for instance;
*
Home weatherizing and adjusting the thermostat for heating and
cooling saves 2,847 pounds of carbon per year. Transit use saves
almost twice the carbon.
*
Replacing five incandescent bulbs to lower wattage compact
fluorescent lamps saves 445 pounds of CO2 per year. Transit use
saves more than ten times the CO2.
*
Replacing an older refrigerator freezer with a high efficient one
saves 335 pounds of CO2 per year. Taking public transportation
saves more than fourteen times the carbon."
See here:
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From schipper at wri.org Wed Oct 17 08:35:43 2007
From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:35:43 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Re: Transit pass - Best Weapon Against Climate Change?
References: <47154779.8090008@greenidea.info>
Message-ID: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342CA297D7@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local>
The transit savings are real as long as no new buses need to be put on line. Until the late 1990s (and from the late 1970s), the AVERAGe Transit bus emitted more CO2/pass-km than the AVERAGE car because buses were mostly empty while cars made admirable improvements. Since the run up of oil prices, however transit ridership per bus or train has picked up admirably (albeit tiny compared with Europe) while car emissions per passenger km have stagnated.
Now let's look at the numbers. 20 pounds of CO2 (call it 8 kg) is what you emit in a car of 250 gm/km moving 32 km, which sounds like an average commute for an American.
On the other hand, a more efficient refrigerator also saves capital for power production and saves peak power.. and we can expect that 50 mn more efficient refrigerators and other improvements to our 120 million households over the next ten years will add up to far more, because (sadly) we don't really expect 50 million daily commuters to switch to transit, at least not for a while.
In other words, big deal. We need it all!
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:21 PM
To: Carfree Cities; Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
Subject: [sustran] Transit pass - Best Weapon Against Climate Change?
The new report released by the American Public Transportation
Association makes some interesting comparisons about various ways to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases.
Excerpt:
"While it is very important to employ environmentally-friendly household
activities, commuting by public transportation makes a more substantial
impact. An individual switching to public transit can reduce their daily
carbon emissions by 20 pounds; that's more than 4,800 pounds in a year.
This is far greater than the many actions people are being encouraged to
take, for instance;
*
Home weatherizing and adjusting the thermostat for heating and
cooling saves 2,847 pounds of carbon per year. Transit use saves
almost twice the carbon.
*
Replacing five incandescent bulbs to lower wattage compact
fluorescent lamps saves 445 pounds of CO2 per year. Transit use
saves more than ten times the CO2.
*
Replacing an older refrigerator freezer with a high efficient one
saves 335 pounds of CO2 per year. Taking public transportation
saves more than fourteen times the carbon."
See here:
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
--------------------------------------------------------
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 litman at vtpi.org Wed Oct 17 08:43:27 2007
From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:43:27 -0700
Subject: [sustran] Re: Transit pass - Best Weapon Against Climate Change?
In-Reply-To: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342CA297D7@wricsex029330.WRI.C
RM.Local>
References: <47154779.8090008@greenidea.info>
<46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342CA297D7@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20071016163842.07264c80@mail.islandnet.com>
There is also research indicating that high
quality public transit (such as rail transit and
bus rapid transit) has a leverage effect on
travel behavior, but stimulating the development
of more accessible, multi-modal communities where
people own fewer motor vehicles and drive less
than in more automobile-dependent communities.
Research by myself and others indicates that each
passenger-mile of transit travel can reduce 2-7
vehicle-miles of driving (see "Evaluating Public
Transit Benefits and Costs" http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf , Table 6).
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman
At 04:35 PM 10/16/2007, Lee Schipper wrote:
>The transit savings are real as long as no new
>buses need to be put on line. Until the late
>1990s (and from the late 1970s), the AVERAGe
>Transit bus emitted more CO2/pass-km than the
>AVERAGE car because buses were mostly empty
>while cars made admirable improvements. Since
>the run up of oil prices, however transit
>ridership per bus or train has picked up
>admirably (albeit tiny compared with Europe)
>while car emissions per passenger km have stagnated.
>
>
>Now let's look at the numbers. 20 pounds of CO2
>(call it 8 kg) is what you emit in a car of 250
>gm/km moving 32 km, which sounds like an average commute for an American.
>
>On the other hand, a more efficient refrigerator
>also saves capital for power production and
>saves peak power.. and we can expect that 50 mn
>more efficient refrigerators and other
>improvements to our 120 million households over
>the next ten years will add up to far more,
>because (sadly) we don't really expect 50
>million daily commuters to switch to transit, at least not for a while.
>
>In other words, big deal. We need it all!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
>sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org@list.jca.apc.org
>[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org@list.jca.apc.org]
>On Behalf Of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
>Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:21 PM
>To: Carfree Cities; Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
>Subject: [sustran] Transit pass - Best Weapon Against Climate Change?
>
>The new report released by the American Public Transportation
>Association makes some interesting comparisons about various ways to
>reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases.
>
>Excerpt:
>
>"While it is very important to employ environmentally-friendly household
>activities, commuting by public transportation makes a more substantial
>impact. An individual switching to public transit can reduce their daily
>carbon emissions by 20 pounds; that's more than 4,800 pounds in a year.
>This is far greater than the many actions people are being encouraged to
>take, for instance;
>
> *
>
> Home weatherizing and adjusting the thermostat for heating and
> cooling saves 2,847 pounds of carbon per year. Transit use saves
> almost twice the carbon.
>
> *
>
> Replacing five incandescent bulbs to lower wattage compact
> fluorescent lamps saves 445 pounds of CO2 per year. Transit use
> saves more than ten times the CO2.
>
> *
>
> Replacing an older refrigerator freezer with a high efficient one
> saves 335 pounds of CO2 per year. Taking public transportation
> saves more than fourteen times the carbon."
>
>See here:
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------
>
>Todd Edelman
>Director
>Green Idea Factory
>
>Korunn? 72
>CZ-10100 Praha 10
>Czech Republic
>
>Skype: toddedelman
>++420 605 915 970
>++420 222 517 832
>
>edelman@greenidea.eu
>http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
>www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>
>Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
>www.worldcarfree.net
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>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').
>--------------------------------------------------------
>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').
Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity?
From edelman at greenidea.info Wed Oct 17 21:06:01 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:06:01 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: Transit pass - Best Weapon Against Climate Change?
In-Reply-To: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342CA297D7@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local>
References: <47154779.8090008@greenidea.info>
<46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342CA297D7@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local>
Message-ID: <4715FAA9.8080005@greenidea.info>
I suspect laboured a bit over this... "our suggestion for fighting
climate change is better than theirs" thing because it might be
considered divisive... pollution is pollution, after all...but I think
the compact fluorescent light bulb thing needs a little bit of a reality
check.
- T
Lee Schipper wrote:
> The transit savings are real as long as no new buses need to be put on line. Until the late 1990s (and from the late 1970s), the AVERAGe Transit bus emitted more CO2/pass-km than the AVERAGE car because buses were mostly empty while cars made admirable improvements. Since the run up of oil prices, however transit ridership per bus or train has picked up admirably (albeit tiny compared with Europe) while car emissions per passenger km have stagnated.
>
>
> Now let's look at the numbers. 20 pounds of CO2 (call it 8 kg) is what you emit in a car of 250 gm/km moving 32 km, which sounds like an average commute for an American.
>
> On the other hand, a more efficient refrigerator also saves capital for power production and saves peak power.. and we can expect that 50 mn more efficient refrigerators and other improvements to our 120 million households over the next ten years will add up to far more, because (sadly) we don't really expect 50 million daily commuters to switch to transit, at least not for a while.
>
> In other words, big deal. We need it all!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:21 PM
> To: Carfree Cities; Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
> Subject: [sustran] Transit pass - Best Weapon Against Climate Change?
>
> The new report released by the American Public Transportation
> Association makes some interesting comparisons about various ways to
> reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases.
>
> Excerpt:
>
> "While it is very important to employ environmentally-friendly household
> activities, commuting by public transportation makes a more substantial
> impact. An individual switching to public transit can reduce their daily
> carbon emissions by 20 pounds; that's more than 4,800 pounds in a year.
> This is far greater than the many actions people are being encouraged to
> take, for instance;
>
> *
>
> Home weatherizing and adjusting the thermostat for heating and
> cooling saves 2,847 pounds of carbon per year. Transit use saves
> almost twice the carbon.
>
> *
>
> Replacing five incandescent bulbs to lower wattage compact
> fluorescent lamps saves 445 pounds of CO2 per year. Transit use
> saves more than ten times the CO2.
>
> *
>
> Replacing an older refrigerator freezer with a high efficient one
> saves 335 pounds of CO2 per year. Taking public transportation
> saves more than fourteen times the carbon."
>
> See here:
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From edelman at greenidea.info Wed Oct 17 21:11:43 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:11:43 +0200
Subject: [sustran] [Fwd: Re: [carfree_cities] Transit pass - Best Weapon
Against Climate Change?]
Message-ID: <4715FBFF.8070108@greenidea.info>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Richard Risemberg
Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Transit pass - Best Weapon Against Climate
Change?
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:01:33 -0700
Size: 15480
Url: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20071017/4f35fc3c/carfree_citiesTransitpass-BestWeaponAgainstClimateChange.eml
From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Oct 18 20:20:16 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:20:16 +0200
Subject: [sustran] [Fwd: [carfree_cities] Re: Transit pass - Best Weapon
Against Climate Change?]
Message-ID: <47174170.8050604@greenidea.info>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "kyle3054"
Subject: [carfree_cities] Re: Transit pass - Best Weapon Against Climate
Change?
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 03:01:36 -0000
Size: 6386
Url: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20071018/263ce5c4/Transitpass-BestWeaponAgainstClimateChange.eml
From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 00:31:43 2007
From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlosfelipe Pardo)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:31:43 -0500
Subject: [sustran] Ho Chi Minh info
Message-ID: <47177C5F.2090008@gmail.com>
Hi,
I've been called by a student here in Bogot? about transport data from
Ho Chi Minh about:
- traffic counts (any existent reports, etc)
- Modal split
I can't point at a specific source, so any information on this is
greatly appreciated. Please cc Luis to this email.
Best regards,
--
Carlosfelipe Pardo
Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator
GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC)
Cl 93A # 14-17 of 708
Bogot? D.C., Colombia
Tel/fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662
carlos.pardo@sutp.org www.sutp.org
From Craig.Johnson at edaw.com Fri Oct 19 00:54:21 2007
From: Craig.Johnson at edaw.com (Craig Johnson)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:54:21 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Re: Ho Chi Minh info
Message-ID:
The best source of information I know of is the Urban Transportation
Study completed for HCMC in 2004 by Almec Engineering in Tokyo.
You can get basic information from the project website...
"http://www.houtrans.org/"
- Craig
****************
Craig Johnson
Planner
EDAW INC
1809 Blake Street
Suite 200
Denver, CO 80202
TEL 303-595-4522 Ext. 3578
FAX 303-595-44343
craig.johnson@edaw.com
From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Oct 19 18:47:11 2007
From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:47:11 +0200
Subject: [sustran] "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste" - From Paris France
on a TFD
Message-ID: <00ae01c81235$0a6f1d80$1f4d5880$@britton@ecoplan.org>
Subject: A Transit Free Day in Paris France
"A crisis is a terrible thing to waste" I have always thought so too, and
in the field in which I do much of my work ? i.e., the ways that people get
around in their day to day lives ? it has consistently struck me that one
terrific learning opportunity that we all seem to rush by is what happens
when parts of the system go down. Or are taken down as they are in a
strike, as for example one such as we are living these days in Paris.
So true to form for a guy like me who thinks he can learn more from
observing, talking to people and learning from the street than he can stuck
in a chair in most international conferences (which you have to CO2 fly to
in order to sit in that chair), I grabbed my camera, jumped onto my bike,
and went out into the street yesterday morning to see where the action was.
Weird. It was by all signs a great day for getting around in Paris. Lots of
bikes of course (the close to 1:1 V?lib?/non-V?lib? split that Ken Coughlin
pointed out is standing up pretty well), a fair number of skaters and no
metros (but you can?t see them anyway). And a few buses. But what struck me
was that at most intersections the cars were moving, if anything even more
smoothly than on a normal working day. Unexpectedly too, much of the time
there were lots of empty taxis waiting at stands around the city. Paris
inter-muros and on the street was looking pretty slick yesterday as this
pretty big transit strike unfolded, and all that in a perfect sunny Autumn
day.
So, what did we, what did I, learn from this great learning day? (In this
particular case perhaps to be thought of as a ?Transit Free Day?.) A couple
of things I would like to share with you this morning before we both get
back to work:
1. Bikes, skating and yes walking have shown once again that they are
great ways to get around in a compact city like Paris. If you could manage
that you had a good day.
2. The V?lib?s helped a lot. And the fact that there were so many bikes
out on the street certainly made the cycling a lot safer.
3. There was quite a bit of action reported by the ride-sharing programs.
4. And apparently a fair amount of hitchhiking (not really a French
habit).
5. And oh yes, lots of people stayed home and gave it a miss.
6. Also, the dynamic maps and reports of the RATP (transit company ?
www.ratp.fr), the SNCF (rail company at sncf.fr) and the street traffic map
(http://www.sytadin.tm.fr/0, http://www.infotrafic.com/route.php?region=IDF,
and http://www.eng.cityvox.fr/trafic_paris/CirculationParis) are very useful
sources for the wary, connected traveler. (I have not made use of the
information that is available via mobile phones, and I really should. To
follow.)
But the people who were paying the price though were the ones I could not
see on the street. Those who live outside of Paris and have to come into the
city to work were waiting for metros and trains for very long times, having
to walk at times quite long distances even to get to the rail station, and
often for trains that never came. And what has to be said is that most of
these people are not among the wealthiest, they are for the most part hard
working people with very modest incomes and no choice but to live out in the
low rent districts. These were the sort of people who were paying the price
for this labor action. (Makes you kind of ponder, eh?)
So if I were mayor, minister or transportation czar, what would I do next?
(Any offers?)
Well, broadly three things.
1. First, I would keep doing what is already going on in this city, but
even more of it. That is putting even more thought, time and resources into
the process of reinventing its transportation system (and of which you can
get some first glimmers at http://www.paris.newmobility.org).
Everything that they are doing under their many programs and projects is
going to help to provide a more effective, cleaner and easier transport
system, with more options and conveniences than the old binary (private
car/public transport) system that is no longer serving well. (You can see a
list of many of these tools and measures in the section 1.4 ?Paris? New
Mobility toolbox: Building blocks for a sustainable city?
2. Second, I would make a major effort to improve, expand and make more
widely available the information/communications interface, fixed and mobile.
Information on the street, in the vehicles, and at the stops. Including on
the mobile phones since (a) just about everyone here already has one
(regardless of income levels (since hey if you don?t have one you can either
steal one or get one on the street for a knock-off price . . . a kind of
democracy in action, even if through the back door if you will).
The other side of the new mobility coin is the information systems that pull
the whole thing together --and if we can?t make full use of the capabilities
that technology has to offer us in 2007 then we are a pretty miserable lot
indeed.
3. Third, I think I would really get to business on 3 and 4, but not only
for strikes but because that?s really the right thing to do anyway. For both
planetary climate reasons and for the more immediate reasons of more
sustainable cities and better, softer lives for all, we need to make sharp
reductions in the number of cars on the roads in our cites and the most
effective way to do this (other than shooting every other driver as one of
my more virile colleagues has suggested) is to find agreeable ways to turn
private cars into shared, pubic even, transport.
We have a lot of tools available that can help us do the job. (And that is
not to say that ride-sharing is either a new thing or that it had not had
both successes (relatively few in the past but now fast gaining) and less
successful programs and outcomes, but rather that with the new IT interface
this changes everything. And if you are looking for a phrase to describe it,
try digital hitchhiking.
So here are the three lessons I for one have learned from this great and
unexpected open university course on the streets of the City of Light. And
if you have comments, corrections, expansions, well may I suggest that you
aim them at the New Mobility Idea Factory, the mail address of which is
NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com.
Eric Britton
PS. And if you are looking for a mayor, minister or transportation czar, my
phone number is just below.
Reinventing Transportation in Cities - at
http://www.invent.newmobility.org/
The Greening of Transport in Paris ?
http://www.paris.newmobility.org/
V?lib? City Bike ? Policy Brief ?
http://www.velib.newmobility.org/
Europe: 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France. T: +331 4326 1323
USA: 9440 Readcrest Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90210. T: +1 310 601-8468
E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org. E2.
fekbritton@gmail.com Skype: newmobility
The Commons: A wide open, world-wide open society forum concerned with
improving our understanding and control of technology as it impacts on
people in our daily lives. Seeking out and pioneering new transformational
concepts for concerned citizens, activists, community groups, entrepreneurs
and business. Supporting local government as that closest to the people and
the problems. Increasing the uncomfort zone for hesitant administrators and
politicians. And through our long term world-wide collaborative efforts,
energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path
to a more sustainable and more just world.
From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Oct 19 18:23:41 2007
From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:23:41 +0200
Subject: [sustran] "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste" -
Message-ID: <005601c81231$e795a2a0$b6c0e7e0$@britton@ecoplan.org>
Subject: A Transit Free Day in Paris France
"A crisis is a terrible thing to waste" I have always thought so too, and
in the field in which I do much of my work ? i.e., the ways that people get
around in their day to day lives ? it has consistently struck me that one
terrific learning opportunity that we all seem to rush by is what happens
when parts of the system go down. Or are taken down as they are in a
strike, as for example one such as we are living these days in Paris.
So true to form for a guy like me who thinks he can learn more from
observing, talking to people and learning from the street than he can stuck
in a chair in most international conferences (which you have to CO2 fly to
in order to sit in that chair), I grabbed my camera, jumped onto my bike,
and went out into the street yesterday morning to see where the action was.
Weird. It was by all signs a great day for getting around in Paris. Lots of
bikes of course (the close to 1:1 V?lib?/non-V?lib? split that Ken Coughlin
pointed out is standing up pretty well), a fair number of skaters and no
metros (but you can?t see them anyway). And a few buses. But what struck me
was that at most intersections the cars were moving, if anything even more
smoothly than on a normal working day. Unexpectedly too, much of the time
there were lots of empty taxis waiting at stands around the city. Paris
inter-muros and on the street was looking pretty slick yesterday as this
pretty big transit strike unfolded, and all that in a perfect sunny Autumn
day.
So, what did we, what did I, learn from this great learning day? (In this
particular case perhaps to be thought of as a ?Transit Free Day?.) A couple
of things I would like to share with you this morning before we both get
back to work:
1. Bikes, skating and yes walking have shown once again that they are
great ways to get around in a compact city like Paris. If you could manage
that you had a good day.
2. The V?lib?s helped a lot. And the fact that there were so many bikes
out on the street certainly made the cycling a lot safer.
3. There was quite a bit of action reported by the ride-sharing programs.
4. And apparently a fair amount of hitchhiking (not really a French
habit).
5. And oh yes, lots of people stayed home and gave it a miss.
6. Also, the dynamic maps and reports of the RATP (transit company ?
www.ratp.fr), the SNCF (rail company at sncf.fr) and the street traffic map
(http://www.sytadin.tm.fr/0, http://www.infotrafic.com/route.php?region=IDF,
and http://www.eng.cityvox.fr/trafic_paris/CirculationParis) are very useful
sources for the wary, connected traveler. (I have not made use of the
information that is available via mobile phones, and I really should. To
follow.)
But the people who were paying the price though were the ones I could not
see on the street. Those who live outside of Paris and have to come into the
city to work were waiting for metros and trains for very long times, having
to walk at times quite long distances even to get to the rail station, and
often for trains that never came. And what has to be said is that most of
these people are not among the wealthiest, they are for the most part hard
working people with very modest incomes and no choice but to live out in the
low rent districts. These were the sort of people who were paying the price
for this labor action. (Makes you kind of ponder, eh?)
So if I were mayor, minister or transportation czar, what would I do next?
(Any offers?)
Well, broadly three things.
1. First, I would keep doing what is already going on in this city, but
even more of it. That is putting even more thought, time and resources into
the process of reinventing its transportation system (and of which you can
get some first glimmers at http://www.paris.newmobility.org).
Everything that they are doing under their many programs and projects is
going to help to provide a more effective, cleaner and easier transport
system, with more options and conveniences than the old binary (private
car/public transport) system that is no longer serving well. (You can see a
list of many of these tools and measures in the section 1.4 ?Paris? New
Mobility toolbox: Building blocks for a sustainable city?
2. Second, I would make a major effort to improve, expand and make more
widely available the information/communications interface, fixed and mobile.
Information on the street, in the vehicles, and at the stops. Including on
the mobile phones since (a) just about everyone here already has one
(regardless of income levels (since hey if you don?t have one you can either
steal one or get one on the street for a knock-off price . . . a kind of
democracy in action, even if through the back door if you will).
The other side of the new mobility coin is the information systems that pull
the whole thing together --and if we can?t make full use of the capabilities
that technology has to offer us in 2007 then we are a pretty miserable lot
indeed.
3. Third, I think I would really get to business on 3 and 4, but not only
for strikes but because that?s really the right thing to do anyway. For both
planetary climate reasons and for the more immediate reasons of more
sustainable cities and better, softer lives for all, we need to make sharp
reductions in the number of cars on the roads in our cites and the most
effective way to do this (other than shooting every other driver as one of
my more virile colleagues has suggested) is to find agreeable ways to turn
private cars into shared, pubic even, transport.
We have a lot of tools available that can help us do the job. (And that is
not to say that ride-sharing is either a new thing or that it had not had
both successes (relatively few in the past but now fast gaining) and less
successful programs and outcomes, but rather that with the new IT interface
this changes everything. And if you are looking for a phrase to describe it,
try digital hitchhiking.
So here are the three lessons I for one have learned from this great and
unexpected open university course on the streets of the City of Light. And
if you have comments, corrections, expansions, well may I suggest that you
aim them at the New Mobility Idea Factory, the mail address of which is
NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com.
Eric Britton
PS. And if you are looking for a mayor, minister or transportation czar, my
phone number is just below.
Reinventing Transportation in Cities - at
http://www.invent.newmobility.org/
The Greening of Transport in Paris ?
http://www.paris.newmobility.org/
V?lib? City Bike ? Policy Brief ?
http://www.velib.newmobility.org/
Europe: 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France. T: +331 4326 1323
USA: 9440 Readcrest Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90210. T: +1 310 601-8468
E. eric.britton@ecoplan.org. E2.
fekbritton@gmail.com Skype: newmobility
The Commons: A wide open, world-wide open society forum concerned with
improving our understanding and control of technology as it impacts on
people in our daily lives. Seeking out and pioneering new transformational
concepts for concerned citizens, activists, community groups, entrepreneurs
and business. Supporting local government as that closest to the people and
the problems. Increasing the uncomfort zone for hesitant administrators and
politicians. And through our long term world-wide collaborative efforts,
energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path
to a more sustainable and more just world.
From edelman at greenidea.eu Sat Oct 20 22:00:58 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:00:58 +0200
Subject: [sustran] [Fwd: [carfree_cities] Token efforts we know are useless...]
Message-ID: <4719FC0A.6080106@greenidea.eu>
Hi,
This is not a new argument but perhaps it is stated a different way...
I don't quite support all he says but it is clear to me that within our
broad community focused on sustainability there is still way too much
emphasis on mobility, in particular private cars, over decreasing the
need for mobility. As Randy Ghent says here
the
balance is wrong.
Kyle's point about decreasing emissions is right on -- we already know
how to do it without investing millions or billions in cleaner private
cars. A similar point - about public transport - was made in the APTA
report linked to from my Blog
- T
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [carfree_cities] Token efforts we know are useless...
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:53:57 +1000
From: Kyle Schuant
Reply-To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
To: 90PercentReduction@yahoogroups.com, carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
... but do anyway?
I received in my inbox the other day a letter from people behind the
campaign hosted here - http://www.pewfuelefficiency.org/.
"I am working with a coalition to ensure that Congress sends the
president a strong energy bill in 2007. This bill includes meaningful
changes for our environment and planet, namely the best fuel economy
standards ever -- 35 mpg by 2020. [...]
"This is a chance for real progress in our move towards a better
environment and less dependence on foreign oil. This legislation would
be a monumental step toward stopping global warming."
I replied,
"I am Australian. Your Congress does not care about me, nor I about it.
"And your bill (going on what you've said, since the text of it is
strangely absent from your website) is weak and sad anyway. You need a
bit more than that to get a better environment and lessen dependence on
foreign oil. The increased efficiencies will just be eaten up by a
larger number of cars and people driving further.
"Don't worry, by 2020 there'll be a lot less oil exported in the
world as the exporters run short and consume more domestically, so your
country won't be importing much anyway!"
The response to this was,
"Everything you say is true, that's for sure. Thanks for the frank
reply!"
I am puzzled by this. This person agrees that because of rising numbers
of vehicles and people's tendency to drive further when fuel is cheaper
or used more efficiently, that the 35 mpg efficiency standard is "weak
and sad", and that oil exports are drying up and will stop Americans
driving much anyway. So they agree that it's a token and useless effort,
but they're doing it anyway.
This, I think, explains a lot of our feelings of helplessness and
confusion, and our various governments' atrocious inactivity in the face
of climate change and peak fossil fuels. We waste time and effort on
useless token efforts. Why? I assume because it makes us feel good. But
doing something that makes you feel good and produces nothing is just
masturbation; not in itself a bad thing, but not perhaps something I
would boast about or ask other people to join me in.
We do not need more fuel efficient cars to get around. Even if we had a
1,000mpg car, that won't help us when the fuel runs short, nor will it
help us when the materials for making the cars themselves run short. We
already have fuel-efficient means of transport, in the form of trains,
trams, buses, ships, bicycles, animals and ultimately our feet. And all
those we can use today, we don't have to wait for our parliaments to
pass laws, or until 2020 or any other date. We can stop masturbating
right now and get on our bikes and go.
Cheers,
Kyle
http://greenwithagun.blogspot.com/
__._,_.___
Messages in this topic
(1) Reply (via web post)
| Start a new topic
Messages
| Files
| Photos
| Links
| Members
Yahoo! Groups
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
*
3
New Members
Visit Your Group
Search Ads
Get new customers.
List your web site
in Yahoo! Search.
Moderator Central
Get answers to
your questions about
running Y! Groups.
Best of Y! Groups
Check it out
and nominate your
group to be featured.
.
__,_._,___
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sun Oct 21 20:03:54 2007
From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton)
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:03:54 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Mexico City mayor joins elite of the world's Green mayors
Message-ID: <000b01c813d2$4b870960$e2951c20$@britton@ecoplan.org>
Mexico City, 20 September 2007:
Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard announced a five-year partnership to green
the city?s transport system, following through on his campaign promise to
fix the Mexico City?s notoriously gridlocked and polluting traffic. Ebrard
signed a commitment to partner with Centro de Transporte Sustentable de
Mexico (CTS-Mexico), the World Resources Institute (WRI), and EMBARQ - the
WRI Center for Sustainable Transport to reduce transport-related air
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; improve the quality and
cost-effectiveness of urban transport; improve accessibility, traffic safety
and public security as well as improve the quality of public spaces in
Mexico City. Combined with a host of other green initiatives that Ebrard has
recently launched, this new partnership places the mayor in an elite group
of megacity mayors such as Michael Bloomberg of New York City, Bertrand
Delano? of Paris and Ken Livingstone of London who are leading a growing
global movement to create cleaner, healthier, and more liveable urban areas.
A centerpiece of Mayor Ebrard's green efforts is the expansion of the city's
two-year-old Metrobus, the creation of which was designed and managed by
CTS-Mexico, WRI, and EMBARQ . Metrobus ? which functions like an
above-ground subway in which large buses travel in dedicated lanes and stop
at special stations ? already carries more than 260,000 passengers each day
along Mexico City's Insurgentes Avenue, one of the longest and busiest
streets in the world. The two-year old ?bus rapid transit? (BRT) system has
shortened commuting times by up to an hour as well as reduced air pollution
and greenhouse gas emissions. Ebrard has publicly committed himself to
creating an additional nine Metrobus lines over the next five years.
http://topics.developmentgateway.org/glocalization/rc/ItemDetail.do?itemId=1
117285 [Thanks to Rainer Rothfuss for the heads-up]
From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sun Oct 21 20:29:11 2007
From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton)
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:29:11 +0200
Subject: [sustran] A reminder of the very specific focus of this forum:
Message-ID: <001401c813d5$b08cfa10$11a6ee30$@britton@ecoplan.org>
Re: A reminder of the very specific focus of this forum:
There seems to have been some slippage in this focus of late, and I would
remind the group that we are here for a very specific reason. To quote the
founders:
Sustran: The Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific --
an email discussion list devoted to people-centred, equitable and
sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global
South'). Sustran: a major discussion forum on urban transport in developing
countries." Discussions are well focused, expert-based and of very high
quality.
I hope that we can retain this focus which is very important, and not allow
our attention to wander to other things for which there are plenty of great
lists around. Among them:
. Carfree Cities -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/
o A discussion forum for those interested in the carfree cities concept.
Includes discussion of related transport and energy issues. Companion to the
presentation at Carfree.com and the newsletter
Carfree Times. Only intended for discussion of
personal experiences as they relate to the larger issues. This is NOT
cycling or transport group, although we do talk some about these issues.
. Carfree Discussions
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CarFree/
o 300 list members discuss and explore issues related to eliminating or
reducing one's reliance on automotive transport. Celebrates non-polluting
forms of transportation such as walking and bicycling while encouraging the
use of mass transit as well as other life style changes providing an
alternative to auto-centric perspectives.
. Carbusters Magazine General Discussion : phorum ....
http://www.carbusters.org/phorum/list.php?3
o Carbusters is a project of the World
Carfree Network, an international network of carfree proponents from around
the world. The World Carfree Network is the hub of the global carfree
movement and acts as a clearinghouse for information from around the world
on how to revitalise our towns and cities and create a sustainable future.
. Critical Mass -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/critical-mass/
o World wide discussion on the Critical Mass. Where, When, What, Posters,
Logos, Ideas, Shared Experience, ...
. Lots Less Cars in Cities Idea Factory -
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LotsLessCars/
o Unconstrained by bureaucracy, economic interests or schedules, this is
the communications forum first brought on line in 1998 in support of the
World Car-Free Days Collaborative, which in July 2006 has been re-titled and
expanded to give us The
Lots Less Cars in Cities Idea Factory. What we are looking at here is not
quite zero cars (in most places) but, let us say, many fewer cars in our
cities, a more tranquil environment, and a lot more safe and happy people.
. World Naked Bike Ride (
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldNakedBikeRide/
o In cities around the world, people will be riding naked to celebrate
cycling and the human body. The ride demonstrates the vulnerability of
cyclists on the road and is a protest against oil dependency. Adults only
of course. ;-)
I hope that you may find this list useful for these other kinds of
discussions which by and large are not on target as per Sustran objecti9ves
and priorities. We all have to try to adhere to this discipline, your
servant included.
Eric Britton
From edelman at greenidea.eu Tue Oct 23 19:57:37 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:57:37 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: [Fwd: [carfree_cities] Token efforts we know are
useless...]
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <471DD3A1.9070105@greenidea.eu>
Hi Jeroen and everyone,
Jeroen Verhoeven wrote:
> Hi Todd,
>
> I read your e-mail and I indeed one can say in hundreds of ways the
> same argument over and over again, but it always stays the same
> argument. And I heard the argument hundreds of times before.
>
> We need increased fuel efficiency AND to reduce car use.
OF course!
> Why?
>
> Let me put it frankly. I read somewhere in your mail somebody was
> talking about masturbating.
> I think that the whole debate of fuel efficiency VERSUS reducing car
> use is a textbook example of idiological masturbation. It is a waste
> of time and energy, which is not getting anybody any further.
AS I tried to say in my email, I didn't agree with everything that was
said and I also think it is a matter of balance, also in rhetoric.
>
> There is indeed a rebound risk, that increased energy efficiency is
> offset by increased use. That goes for cars, as well as for energy
> saving light bulbs.
> Energy saving light bulbs are not a subsitute for switching off the
> light neither, but I don't hear any ideological debate going on there.
> Why?
HMMM... good question.
>
> So please, let's be a bit pragmatic and work with each other instead
> of against each other.
PRAGMATISM often leads to a dumbing down of the issues (worse, of
course, when an environmental group takes money from the auto- and
autorelated- industry... thankfully not the case with FoE). The whole
debate is still mostly about biofuels and carbon, and that is way
oversimplified. I know you know that, and you know I do, but lots people
don't. There is a tendency to oversimplify, and the machinations in
Brussels encourage that, but the result is that the biggest enviro
groups in Europe are spending the lion's share of their time on the
issue which is not the biggest share of the problem.
Also, I am not sure if this more or less internal debate is "working
against..."
As I said, right now the high profile environmental groups in Europe are
doing great work on reducing carbon emissions and improving efficiency -
and my only argument with that is the rebound thing, as you mentioned.
(It is of course also about cars being smaller, and people not just
feeling better but using this a starting point for further better
behaviour), but the problem is that what the public sees is mostly,
almost exclusively, talk about fixing cars.
In other words it is not being into the best context. I recall something
in a recent T&E publication which said something like "... and policies
to make development more dense..." (Forgive me if I got that horribly
wrong) but it seemed almost like an add on. To say this another way.
"Transport" in a city starts with urban design, so I would LOVE it if
T&E began HT&E (Habitat, Transport and Environment) which could
incorporate areas outside cities. I will buy a T-shirt with the new logo.
>
> Here is a ver very short analysys of how both are working on another
> level and complementary.
>
> Working on fuel efficiency is decided on the European level, and
> working to reduce car use is most effectively done on the local level,
> so both require working on another level.
WHERE does "polluter pays" come into this? On what level? Can't EU funds
for city development - especially in places getting Structural Funds -
be tied to a pre-condition of a city or region, etc. having a concrete
plan and demonstrated action to reduce car use? This would mean that a
city could not get EU funds for public transport as it also built lots
of car-oriented things (e.g. in Prague).
>
> Working on fuel efficiency is in a way quite straightforward, although
> working in direct confrontation with the car manufacturers, in a tense
> political climate.
> Working to reduce car use is a very complex matter, touching on issues
> as land use, real estate prices, urban sprawl, public transport, air
> quality, local economy, social policies, political competencies
> scattered over different levels,... and so on.
>
> In short, it is a matter of working on different levels. A fuel
> efficiency campaign needs to be accompagnied by local work to reduce
> car use, and working to reduce car use needs fuel efficiency for two
> reasons:
>
> 1) Even with less cars in society, the cars there are need to be more
> fuel efficient.
> 2) If we don't succeed to have less cars in society (which seems to be
> the case for the moment), the least we can do is to make them use less
> fuel.
AND, again, what about the "rebound effect" you mentioned?
Again I think the balance is not the best it could be, in both action
and rhetoric. Too much emphasis on mobility. "Mobility" is something in
the proposed EU Constitution which probably everyone agrees with... but
"Proximity"? Not nearly enough.
In other words I really love what FoE and T&E do and would be really
happy if you could use your power and visibility to at least make the
holistic solution more clear. That is why I like that - finally - more
people from FoE are participating in this forum.
>
> I support the carfree work very much, and locally here in Brussels I
> am involved as a volunteer in the organisation of actions to reduce
> car use. I like action, not sterile debates.
> Cheers,
>
> Jeroen
>
> P.S.: This is the project I did with a bunch of friends in Brussels on
> the car fee day: www.auto-nomy.org
I LIKED when the car goes into the petrol station for air for its
tyres.... maybe you should have digitized out the "Total" sign... ;-) No
free publicity...
- T
p.s. There is still lots of discussion - some of it new and helpful -
going about this on the Carfree Cities list.
>
>
> Jeroen Verhoeven
> Cars and Climate Change Campaign
> Friends of the Earth Europe
> 15 Rue Blanche
> B-1050 Brussels
> T: +32-2-542 61 09
> F: +32-2-537 55 96
> E: jeroen.verhoeven@foeeurope.org
> W: www.foeeurope.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory"
> To: jeroen.verhoeven@foeeurope.org, Global 'South' Sustainable
> Transport , Nina Renshaw
>
> Cc: kyle3054@iprimus.com.au
> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:00:58 +0200
> Subject: [Fwd: [carfree_cities] Token efforts we know are useless...]
>
> Hi,
>
> This is not a new argument but perhaps it is stated a different way...
>
> I don't quite support all he says but it is clear to me that
> within our
> broad community focused on sustainability there is still way too much
> emphasis on mobility, in particular private cars, over decreasing the
> need for mobility. As Randy Ghent says here
> < http://www.worldcarfree.net/conference/2007/randall_ghent.doc> the
> balance is wrong.
>
> Kyle's point about decreasing emissions is right on -- we already
> know
> how to do it without investing millions or billions in cleaner
> private
> cars. A similar point - about public transport - was made in the APTA
> report linked to from my Blog
>
>
> - T
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [carfree_cities] Token efforts we know are useless...
> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:53:57 +1000
> From: Kyle Schuant
> Reply-To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
> To: 90PercentReduction@yahoogroups.com,
> carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> ... but do anyway?
>
> I received in my inbox the other day a letter from people behind the
> campaign hosted here - http://www.pewfuelefficiency.org/.
> < http://www.pewfuelefficiency.org/.>
>
> "I am working with a coalition to ensure that Congress sends the
> president a strong energy bill in 2007. This bill includes meaningful
> changes for our environment and planet, namely the best fuel economy
> standards ever -- 35 mpg by 2020. [...]
>
> "This is a chance for real progress in our move towards a better
> environment and less dependence on foreign oil. This legislation would
> be a monumental step toward stopping global warming."
>
> I replied,
>
> "I am Australian. Your Congress does not care about me, nor I
> about it.
>
> "And your bill (going on what you've said, since the text of it is
> strangely absent from your website) is weak and sad anyway. You need a
> bit more than that to get a better environment and lessen
> dependence on
> foreign oil. The increased efficiencies will just be eaten up by a
> larger number of cars and people driving further.
>
> "Don't worry, by 2020 there'll be a lot less oil exported in the
> world as the exporters run short and consume more domestically, so
> your
> country won't be importing much anyway!"
>
> The response to this was,
>
> "Everything you say is true, that's for sure. Thanks for the frank
> reply!"
>
> I am puzzled by this. This person agrees that because of rising
> numbers
> of vehicles and people's tendency to drive further when fuel is
> cheaper
> or used more efficiently, that the 35 mpg efficiency standard is "weak
> and sad", and that oil exports are drying up and will stop Americans
> driving much anyway. So they agree that it's a token and useless
> effort,
> but they're doing it anyway.
>
> This, I think, explains a lot of our feelings of helplessness and
> confusion, and our various governments' atrocious inactivity in
> the face
> of climate change and peak fossil fuels. We waste time and effort on
> useless token efforts. Why? I assume because it makes us feel
> good. But
> doing something that makes you feel good and produces nothing is just
> masturbation; not in itself a bad thing, but not perhaps something I
> would boast about or ask other people to join me in.
>
> We do not need more fuel efficient cars to get around. Even if we
> had a
> 1,000mpg car, that won't help us when the fuel runs short, nor will it
> help us when the materials for making the cars themselves run
> short. We
> already have fuel-efficient means of transport, in the form of trains,
> trams, buses, ships, bicycles, animals and ultimately our feet.
> And all
> those we can use today, we don't have to wait for our parliaments to
> pass laws, or until 2020 or any other date. We can stop masturbating
> right now and get on our bikes and go.
>
> Cheers,
> Kyle
> http://greenwithagun.blogspot.com/ <
> http://greenwithagun.blogspot.com/>
>
> __._,_.___
> Messages in this topic
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/message/10534;_ylc=X3oDMTM2ZGQ0cW91BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BG1zZ0lkAzEwNTM0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMgR0cGNJZAMxMDUzNA--
> >
> (1) Reply (via web post)
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbjJxbzZiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BG1zZ0lkAzEwNTM0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMg--?act=reply&messageNum=10534
>
> >
> | Start a new topic
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcjQzNmVtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMg--
> >
>
> Messages
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMzc0NThyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMg--
> >
> | Files
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdGpsdmhlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2ZpbGVzBHN0aW1lAzExOTI4ODM3MDI-
> >
> | Photos
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNDRmOXA4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Bob3QEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMg--
> >
> | Links
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcmp2NTNqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2xpbmtzBHN0aW1lAzExOTI4ODM3MDI-
> >
> | Members
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlb2ZqYjlsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21icnMEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMg--
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbzZzNWM1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMTkyODgzNzAy
> >
>
> Change settings via the Web
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNm81YzcyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzExOTI4ODM3MDI-
> >
> (Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest
>
>
> | Switch format to Traditional
>
>
>
> Visit Your Group
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaGduczdqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMTkyODgzNzAy
> >
> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use < http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> |
> Unsubscribe
>
> Recent Activity
>
> *
> 3
> New Members
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNXUzN3VlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzExOTI4ODM3MDI-
> >
>
> Visit Your Group
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYXBrYnR1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMg--
> >
>
> Search Ads
>
> Get new customers.
> <
> http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12j5tfdt2/M=493064.10729656.11333347.8674578/D=groups/S=1707208605:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1192890902/A=3848641/R=0/SIG=1312g85fq/
> *
> http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/srchv2.php?o=US2003&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Groups2&s=Y&s2=&s3=&b=50
>
> >
>
> List your web site
>
> in Yahoo! Search.
>
> Moderator Central
>
> Get answers to
> <
> http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jqh92fu/M=493064.10729651.11333342.8674578/D=groups/S=1707208605:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1192890902/A=4936879/R=0/SIG=11e3tma2a/
> * http://new.groups.yahoo.com/moderatorcentral>
>
> your questions about
>
> running Y! Groups.
>
> Best of Y! Groups
>
> Check it out
> <
> http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jn5diof/M=493064.11127061.11695037.8674578/D=groups/S=1707208605:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1192890902/A=4763759/R=0/SIG=11ou7otip/
> *http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/bestofyahoogroups/ >
>
> and nominate your
>
> group to be featured.
>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Todd Edelman
> Director
> Green Idea Factory
>
> Korunn? 72
> CZ-10100 Praha 10
> Czech Republic
>
> Skype: toddedelman
> ++420 605 915 970
> ++420 222 517 832
>
> edelman@greenidea.eu
> http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>
> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
> www.worldcarfree.net
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From schipper at wri.org Tue Oct 23 20:50:03 2007
From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:50:03 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Re: [Fwd: [carfree_cities] Token efforts we know
areuseless...]
References:
<471DD3A1.9070105@greenidea.eu>
Message-ID: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C93E2D2@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local>
In wealthy countries, the rebound effect of more vehicle efficiency on vehicle use is between 5% (US) and 20% EUrope...Kindly see the June 2000 issue of Energy Policy (which I edited) on the rebound in general.
Lee Schipper
Director of Research, EMBARQ
>From Oct 1, Visiting Scholar,
UC Transportation Center
UC Berkeley, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org@list.jca.apc.org on behalf of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
Sent: Tue 10/23/2007 6:57 AM
To: jeroen.verhoeven@foeeurope.org
Cc: kyle3054@iprimus.com.au; ianfiddies@hotmail.com; lievin.chemin@webage.be; Mari Jussi; ben@bralvzw.be; Nina Renshaw; Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: [Fwd: [carfree_cities] Token efforts we know areuseless...]
Hi Jeroen and everyone,
Jeroen Verhoeven wrote:
> Hi Todd,
>
> I read your e-mail and I indeed one can say in hundreds of ways the
> same argument over and over again, but it always stays the same
> argument. And I heard the argument hundreds of times before.
>
> We need increased fuel efficiency AND to reduce car use.
OF course!
> Why?
>
> Let me put it frankly. I read somewhere in your mail somebody was
> talking about masturbating.
> I think that the whole debate of fuel efficiency VERSUS reducing car
> use is a textbook example of idiological masturbation. It is a waste
> of time and energy, which is not getting anybody any further.
AS I tried to say in my email, I didn't agree with everything that was
said and I also think it is a matter of balance, also in rhetoric.
>
> There is indeed a rebound risk, that increased energy efficiency is
> offset by increased use. That goes for cars, as well as for energy
> saving light bulbs.
> Energy saving light bulbs are not a subsitute for switching off the
> light neither, but I don't hear any ideological debate going on there.
> Why?
HMMM... good question.
>
> So please, let's be a bit pragmatic and work with each other instead
> of against each other.
PRAGMATISM often leads to a dumbing down of the issues (worse, of
course, when an environmental group takes money from the auto- and
autorelated- industry... thankfully not the case with FoE). The whole
debate is still mostly about biofuels and carbon, and that is way
oversimplified. I know you know that, and you know I do, but lots people
don't. There is a tendency to oversimplify, and the machinations in
Brussels encourage that, but the result is that the biggest enviro
groups in Europe are spending the lion's share of their time on the
issue which is not the biggest share of the problem.
Also, I am not sure if this more or less internal debate is "working
against..."
As I said, right now the high profile environmental groups in Europe are
doing great work on reducing carbon emissions and improving efficiency -
and my only argument with that is the rebound thing, as you mentioned.
(It is of course also about cars being smaller, and people not just
feeling better but using this a starting point for further better
behaviour), but the problem is that what the public sees is mostly,
almost exclusively, talk about fixing cars.
In other words it is not being into the best context. I recall something
in a recent T&E publication which said something like "... and policies
to make development more dense..." (Forgive me if I got that horribly
wrong) but it seemed almost like an add on. To say this another way.
"Transport" in a city starts with urban design, so I would LOVE it if
T&E began HT&E (Habitat, Transport and Environment) which could
incorporate areas outside cities. I will buy a T-shirt with the new logo.
>
> Here is a ver very short analysys of how both are working on another
> level and complementary.
>
> Working on fuel efficiency is decided on the European level, and
> working to reduce car use is most effectively done on the local level,
> so both require working on another level.
WHERE does "polluter pays" come into this? On what level? Can't EU funds
for city development - especially in places getting Structural Funds -
be tied to a pre-condition of a city or region, etc. having a concrete
plan and demonstrated action to reduce car use? This would mean that a
city could not get EU funds for public transport as it also built lots
of car-oriented things (e.g. in Prague).
>
> Working on fuel efficiency is in a way quite straightforward, although
> working in direct confrontation with the car manufacturers, in a tense
> political climate.
> Working to reduce car use is a very complex matter, touching on issues
> as land use, real estate prices, urban sprawl, public transport, air
> quality, local economy, social policies, political competencies
> scattered over different levels,... and so on.
>
> In short, it is a matter of working on different levels. A fuel
> efficiency campaign needs to be accompagnied by local work to reduce
> car use, and working to reduce car use needs fuel efficiency for two
> reasons:
>
> 1) Even with less cars in society, the cars there are need to be more
> fuel efficient.
> 2) If we don't succeed to have less cars in society (which seems to be
> the case for the moment), the least we can do is to make them use less
> fuel.
AND, again, what about the "rebound effect" you mentioned?
Again I think the balance is not the best it could be, in both action
and rhetoric. Too much emphasis on mobility. "Mobility" is something in
the proposed EU Constitution which probably everyone agrees with... but
"Proximity"? Not nearly enough.
In other words I really love what FoE and T&E do and would be really
happy if you could use your power and visibility to at least make the
holistic solution more clear. That is why I like that - finally - more
people from FoE are participating in this forum.
>
> I support the carfree work very much, and locally here in Brussels I
> am involved as a volunteer in the organisation of actions to reduce
> car use. I like action, not sterile debates.
> Cheers,
>
> Jeroen
>
> P.S.: This is the project I did with a bunch of friends in Brussels on
> the car fee day: www.auto-nomy.org
I LIKED when the car goes into the petrol station for air for its
tyres.... maybe you should have digitized out the "Total" sign... ;-) No
free publicity...
- T
p.s. There is still lots of discussion - some of it new and helpful -
going about this on the Carfree Cities list.
>
>
> Jeroen Verhoeven
> Cars and Climate Change Campaign
> Friends of the Earth Europe
> 15 Rue Blanche
> B-1050 Brussels
> T: +32-2-542 61 09
> F: +32-2-537 55 96
> E: jeroen.verhoeven@foeeurope.org
> W: www.foeeurope.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory"
> To: jeroen.verhoeven@foeeurope.org, Global 'South' Sustainable
> Transport , Nina Renshaw
>
> Cc: kyle3054@iprimus.com.au
> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:00:58 +0200
> Subject: [Fwd: [carfree_cities] Token efforts we know are useless...]
>
> Hi,
>
> This is not a new argument but perhaps it is stated a different way...
>
> I don't quite support all he says but it is clear to me that
> within our
> broad community focused on sustainability there is still way too much
> emphasis on mobility, in particular private cars, over decreasing the
> need for mobility. As Randy Ghent says here
> < http://www.worldcarfree.net/conference/2007/randall_ghent.doc> the
> balance is wrong.
>
> Kyle's point about decreasing emissions is right on -- we already
> know
> how to do it without investing millions or billions in cleaner
> private
> cars. A similar point - about public transport - was made in the APTA
> report linked to from my Blog
>
>
> - T
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [carfree_cities] Token efforts we know are useless...
> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 18:53:57 +1000
> From: Kyle Schuant
> Reply-To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
> To: 90PercentReduction@yahoogroups.com,
> carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> ... but do anyway?
>
> I received in my inbox the other day a letter from people behind the
> campaign hosted here - http://www.pewfuelefficiency.org/.
> < http://www.pewfuelefficiency.org/.>
>
> "I am working with a coalition to ensure that Congress sends the
> president a strong energy bill in 2007. This bill includes meaningful
> changes for our environment and planet, namely the best fuel economy
> standards ever -- 35 mpg by 2020. [...]
>
> "This is a chance for real progress in our move towards a better
> environment and less dependence on foreign oil. This legislation would
> be a monumental step toward stopping global warming."
>
> I replied,
>
> "I am Australian. Your Congress does not care about me, nor I
> about it.
>
> "And your bill (going on what you've said, since the text of it is
> strangely absent from your website) is weak and sad anyway. You need a
> bit more than that to get a better environment and lessen
> dependence on
> foreign oil. The increased efficiencies will just be eaten up by a
> larger number of cars and people driving further.
>
> "Don't worry, by 2020 there'll be a lot less oil exported in the
> world as the exporters run short and consume more domestically, so
> your
> country won't be importing much anyway!"
>
> The response to this was,
>
> "Everything you say is true, that's for sure. Thanks for the frank
> reply!"
>
> I am puzzled by this. This person agrees that because of rising
> numbers
> of vehicles and people's tendency to drive further when fuel is
> cheaper
> or used more efficiently, that the 35 mpg efficiency standard is "weak
> and sad", and that oil exports are drying up and will stop Americans
> driving much anyway. So they agree that it's a token and useless
> effort,
> but they're doing it anyway.
>
> This, I think, explains a lot of our feelings of helplessness and
> confusion, and our various governments' atrocious inactivity in
> the face
> of climate change and peak fossil fuels. We waste time and effort on
> useless token efforts. Why? I assume because it makes us feel
> good. But
> doing something that makes you feel good and produces nothing is just
> masturbation; not in itself a bad thing, but not perhaps something I
> would boast about or ask other people to join me in.
>
> We do not need more fuel efficient cars to get around. Even if we
> had a
> 1,000mpg car, that won't help us when the fuel runs short, nor will it
> help us when the materials for making the cars themselves run
> short. We
> already have fuel-efficient means of transport, in the form of trains,
> trams, buses, ships, bicycles, animals and ultimately our feet.
> And all
> those we can use today, we don't have to wait for our parliaments to
> pass laws, or until 2020 or any other date. We can stop masturbating
> right now and get on our bikes and go.
>
> Cheers,
> Kyle
> http://greenwithagun.blogspot.com/ <
> http://greenwithagun.blogspot.com/>
>
> __._,_.___
> Messages in this topic
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/message/10534;_ylc=X3oDMTM2ZGQ0cW91BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BG1zZ0lkAzEwNTM0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMgR0cGNJZAMxMDUzNA--
> >
> (1) Reply (via web post)
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbjJxbzZiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BG1zZ0lkAzEwNTM0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMg--?act=reply&messageNum=10534
>
> >
> | Start a new topic
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcjQzNmVtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMg--
> >
>
> Messages
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMzc0NThyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMg--
> >
> | Files
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdGpsdmhlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2ZpbGVzBHN0aW1lAzExOTI4ODM3MDI-
> >
> | Photos
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNDRmOXA4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Bob3QEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMg--
> >
> | Links
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcmp2NTNqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2xpbmtzBHN0aW1lAzExOTI4ODM3MDI-
> >
> | Members
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJlb2ZqYjlsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21icnMEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMg--
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbzZzNWM1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMTkyODgzNzAy
> >
>
> Change settings via the Web
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNm81YzcyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzExOTI4ODM3MDI-
> >
> (Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest
>
>
> | Switch format to Traditional
>
>
>
> Visit Your Group
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaGduczdqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMTkyODgzNzAy
> >
> | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use < http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> |
> Unsubscribe
>
> Recent Activity
>
> *
> 3
> New Members
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNXUzN3VlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzExOTI4ODM3MDI-
> >
>
> Visit Your Group
> <
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYXBrYnR1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE2NzA5MjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA3MjA4NjA1BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mjg4MzcwMg--
> >
>
> Search Ads
>
> Get new customers.
> <
> http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12j5tfdt2/M=493064.10729656.11333347.8674578/D=groups/S=1707208605:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1192890902/A=3848641/R=0/SIG=1312g85fq/
> *
> http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/srchv2.php?o=US2003&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Groups2&s=Y&s2=&s3=&b=50
>
> >
>
> List your web site
>
> in Yahoo! Search.
>
> Moderator Central
>
> Get answers to
> <
> http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jqh92fu/M=493064.10729651.11333342.8674578/D=groups/S=1707208605:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1192890902/A=4936879/R=0/SIG=11e3tma2a/
> * http://new.groups.yahoo.com/moderatorcentral>
>
> your questions about
>
> running Y! Groups.
>
> Best of Y! Groups
>
> Check it out
> <
> http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jn5diof/M=493064.11127061.11695037.8674578/D=groups/S=1707208605:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1192890902/A=4763759/R=0/SIG=11ou7otip/
> *http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/bestofyahoogroups/ >
>
> and nominate your
>
> group to be featured.
>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Todd Edelman
> Director
> Green Idea Factory
>
> Korunn? 72
> CZ-10100 Praha 10
> Czech Republic
>
> Skype: toddedelman
> ++420 605 915 970
> ++420 222 517 832
>
> edelman@greenidea.eu
> http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>
> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
> www.worldcarfree.net
>
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
--------------------------------------------------------
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 markus at sander.ms Wed Oct 24 00:38:38 2007
From: markus at sander.ms (Markus Sander)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:38:38 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Re: [Fwd: [carfree_cities] Token efforts we know
are useless...]
In-Reply-To: <471DD3A1.9070105@greenidea.eu>
References:
<471DD3A1.9070105@greenidea.eu>
Message-ID: <20071023153838.GC9869@kira.sander.ms>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 12:57:37PM +0200, Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory wrote:
> > Energy saving light bulbs are not a subsitute for switching off the
> > light neither, but I don't hear any ideological debate going on there.
> > Why?
> HMMM... good question.
The downside of a light bulb are CO2 emissions.
The downside of a car are CO2 emissions,
[ fill in about 50 items or more]
Regards,
--
(c) markus
From litman at vtpi.org Wed Oct 24 00:53:06 2007
From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:53:06 -0700
Subject: [sustran] Re: Token efforts we know areuseless...]
In-Reply-To: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C93E2D2@wricsex029330.WRI.C
RM.Local>
References:
<471DD3A1.9070105@greenidea.eu>
<46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C93E2D2@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20071023082925.07574d08@mail.islandnet.com>
The values Schipper cites are short-run effects; long-run effects are
probably two or three times higher, as lower per-mile vehicle
operating costs affect longer term decisions such as where people
live and work. For more information see the "Rebound Effects" chapter
of our Online TDM Encyclopedia (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm64.htm ).
If the only problems we are concerned about are excessive energy
consumptions and associated pollution emission, then shifting to more
efficient and alternative fuel vehicles may be reasonable solutions,
despite the rebound effects, since there is still a substantial net
reduction in energy use.
However, because of these rebound effects, energy savings benefits
are offset, at least to some degree, by increases in traffic
congestion, road and parking facility costs, traffic accidents and
sprawl. Described in a more positive way, a liter of fuel saved by
reducing vehicle travel is worth far more (about an order of
magnitude more according to my analysis) than an liter saved by
increasing energy efficiency or alternative fuels because reduced
mileage provides many other economic, social and environmental
benefits, including congestion reduction, road and parking facility
cost savings, consumer savings, increased safety and health, and more
efficient land use development. For discussion of this issue see my
paper, "Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient Transportation: Comparing
Transportation Energy Conservation Strategies", published in
Transport Policy, Volume 12, Issue 2, March 2005, Pages 121-129, and
available at http://www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf .
We have identified a number of "Win-Win" transportation solutions,
which are policy reforms based on market principles, which help
achieve economic, social and environmental planning objectives by
correcting existing market distortions what result in economically
excessive motor vehicle traffic (see http://www.vtpi.org/winwin.pdf
). Our research indicates that in a more efficient market, consumers
would choose to reduce their vehicle travel by about a third, rely
more on alternative modes, choose more accessible communities, and be
far better off overall as a result (see http://www.vtpi.org/sotpm.pdf ).
The best way to encourage both efficient vehicles and efficient
transportation is to raise fuel taxes. By stimulating more driving,
subsidizing hybrid vehicles, hyper cars and alternative fuels make
other problems worse. Biofuel subsidies are particularly misguided,
except perhaps for ethanol used to fuel walking and cycling, although
I prefer mine undistilled.
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman
At 04:50 AM 10/23/2007, Lee Schipper wrote:
>In wealthy countries, the rebound effect of more vehicle efficiency
>on vehicle use is between 5% (US) and 20% EUrope...Kindly see the
>June 2000 issue of Energy Policy (which I edited) on the rebound in general.
>
>
>Lee Schipper
>Director of Research, EMBARQ
> >From Oct 1, Visiting Scholar,
>UC Transportation Center
>UC Berkeley, CA
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org@list.jca.apc.org on
>behalf of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
>Sent: Tue 10/23/2007 6:57 AM
>To: jeroen.verhoeven@foeeurope.org
>Cc: kyle3054@iprimus.com.au; ianfiddies@hotmail.com;
>lievin.chemin@webage.be; Mari Jussi; ben@bralvzw.be; Nina Renshaw;
>Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
>Subject: [sustran] Re: [Fwd: [carfree_cities] Token efforts we know
>areuseless...]
>
>Hi Jeroen and everyone,
>
>Jeroen Verhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Todd,
> >
> > I read your e-mail and I indeed one can say in hundreds of ways the
> > same argument over and over again, but it always stays the same
> > argument. And I heard the argument hundreds of times before.
> >
> > We need increased fuel efficiency AND to reduce car use.
>OF course!
> > Why?
Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
From schipper at wri.org Wed Oct 24 03:11:34 2007
From: schipper at wri.org (Lee Schipper)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:11:34 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Re: Token efforts we know areuseless...]
References:
<471DD3A1.9070105@greenidea.eu>
<46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342C93E2D2@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local>
<6.2.3.4.2.20071023082925.07574d08@mail.islandnet.com>
Message-ID: <46E2E1971BCEC1459149FBB1A4B4342CA8E91F@wricsex029330.WRI.CRM.Local>
Todd makes a good point..both about long and short run and about things
potentially worse than fuel related externalities.
From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:53 AM
To: Lee Schipper; edelman@greenidea.eu; jeroen.verhoeven@foeeurope.org
Cc: kyle3054@iprimus.com.au; ianfiddies@hotmail.com; ben@bralvzw.be;
Mari Jussi; lievin.chemin@webage.be; Nina Renshaw; Global 'South'
Sustainable Transport
Subject: Re: Token efforts we know areuseless...]
The values Schipper cites are short-run effects; long-run effects are
probably two or three times higher, as lower per-mile vehicle operating
costs affect longer term decisions such as where people live and work.
For more information see the "Rebound Effects" chapter of our Online TDM
Encyclopedia ( http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm64.htm
).
If the only problems we are concerned about are excessive energy
consumptions and associated pollution emission, then shifting to more
efficient and alternative fuel vehicles may be reasonable solutions,
despite the rebound effects, since there is still a substantial net
reduction in energy use.
However, because of these rebound effects, energy savings benefits are
offset, at least to some degree, by increases in traffic congestion,
road and parking facility costs, traffic accidents and sprawl. Described
in a more positive way, a liter of fuel saved by reducing vehicle travel
is worth far more (about an order of magnitude more according to my
analysis) than an liter saved by increasing energy efficiency or
alternative fuels because reduced mileage provides many other economic,
social and environmental benefits, including congestion reduction, road
and parking facility cost savings, consumer savings, increased safety
and health, and more efficient land use development. For discussion of
this issue see my paper, "Efficient Vehicles Versus Efficient
Transportation: Comparing Transportation Energy Conservation
Strategies", published in Transport Policy, Volume 12, Issue 2, March
2005, Pages 121-129, and available at http://www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf .
We have identified a number of "Win-Win" transportation solutions, which
are policy reforms based on market principles, which help achieve
economic, social and environmental planning objectives by correcting
existing market distortions what result in economically excessive motor
vehicle traffic (see http://www.vtpi.org/winwin.pdf ). Our research
indicates that in a more efficient market, consumers would choose to
reduce their vehicle travel by about a third, rely more on alternative
modes, choose more accessible communities, and be far better off overall
as a result (see http://www.vtpi.org/sotpm.pdf ).
The best way to encourage both efficient vehicles and efficient
transportation is to raise fuel taxes. By stimulating more driving,
subsidizing hybrid vehicles, hyper cars and alternative fuels make other
problems worse. Biofuel subsidies are particularly misguided, except
perhaps for ethanol used to fuel walking and cycling, although I prefer
mine undistilled.
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman
At 04:50 AM 10/23/2007, Lee Schipper wrote:
In wealthy countries, the rebound effect of more vehicle efficiency on
vehicle use is between 5% (US) and 20% EUrope...Kindly see the June 2000
issue of Energy Policy (which I edited) on the rebound in general.
Lee Schipper
Director of Research, EMBARQ
>From Oct 1, Visiting Scholar,
UC Transportation Center
UC Berkeley, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+schipper=wri.org@list.jca.apc.org on
behalf of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
Sent: Tue 10/23/2007 6:57 AM
To: jeroen.verhoeven@foeeurope.org
Cc: kyle3054@iprimus.com.au; ianfiddies@hotmail.com;
lievin.chemin@webage.be; Mari Jussi; ben@bralvzw.be; Nina Renshaw;
Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: [Fwd: [carfree_cities] Token efforts we know
areuseless...]
Hi Jeroen and everyone,
Jeroen Verhoeven wrote:
> Hi Todd,
>
> I read your e-mail and I indeed one can say in hundreds of ways the
> same argument over and over again, but it always stays the same
> argument. And I heard the argument hundreds of times before.
>
> We need increased fuel efficiency AND to reduce car use.
OF course!
> Why?
Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
From bruun at seas.upenn.edu Wed Oct 24 04:46:11 2007
From: bruun at seas.upenn.edu (bruun at seas.upenn.edu)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:46:11 -0400
Subject: [sustran] Litman on vehicle efficiency
In-Reply-To: <47174170.8050604@greenidea.info>
References: <47174170.8050604@greenidea.info>
Message-ID: <20071023154610.db0ux6dn480kw0wk@webmail.seas.upenn.edu>
Quoting Todd Alexander Litman :
If the only problems we are concerned about are excessive energy
consumptions and associated pollution emission, then shifting to more
efficient and alternative fuel vehicles may be reasonable solutions,
despite the rebound effects, since there is still a substantial net
reduction in energy use.
However, because of these rebound effects, energy savings benefits are
offset, at least to some degree, by increases in traffic congestion,
road and parking facility costs, traffic accidents and sprawl.
Described in a more positive way, a liter of fuel saved by reducing
vehicle travel is worth far more (about an order of magnitude more
according to my analysis) than an liter saved by increasing energy
efficiency or alternative fuels because reduced mileage provides many
other economic, social and environmental benefits, including congestion
reduction, road and parking facility cost savings, consumer savings,
increased safety and health, and more efficient land use development.
For discussion of this issue see my paper, "Efficient Vehicles Versus
Efficient Transportation: Comparing Transportation Energy Conservation
Strategies", published in Transport Policy, Volume 12, Issue 2, March
2005, Pages 121-129, and available at http://www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf .
For information on the costs of increased automobile travel see my
report "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis"
(http://www.vtpi.org/tca ) and its many references.
We have identified a number of "Win-Win" transportation solutions,
which are policy reforms based on market principles, which help achieve
economic, social and environmental planning objectives by correcting
existing market distortions what result in economically excessive motor
vehicle traffic (see http://www.vtpi.org/winwin.pdf ). Our research
indicates that in a more efficient market, consumers would choose to
reduce their vehicle travel by about a third, rely more on alternative
modes, choose more accessible communities, and be far better off
overall as a result (see http://www.vtpi.org/sotpm.pdf ).
The best way to encourage both efficient vehicles and efficient
transportation is to raise fuel taxes. By stimulating more driving,
subsidizing hybrid vehicles, hyper cars and alternative fuels make
other problems worse. Biofuel subsidies are particularly misguided,
except perhaps for ethanol used to fuel walking and cycling, although I
prefer mine undistilled.
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman
From sunny.enie at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 12:50:33 2007
From: sunny.enie at gmail.com (Sunny)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:50:33 +0700
Subject: [sustran] Transport and Climate Change: A new module of the GTZ
Sustainable Urban Transport Sourcebook
Message-ID: <27b8dced0710232050v554fe9aepa2d9f6c96015f9e2@mail.gmail.com>
GTZ-SUTP announces the release of a new module titled "Transport and Climate
Change". The module summarises the challenges that climate change mitigation
has to face in the transport sector and presents the major options and
instruments to deal with them. The module is a comprehensive summary of
sustainable transport policy options and sketches out their potential for
the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.
The module draws on the existing sourcebook modules and thus offers both a
comprehensive overview and a thematic entry point to the whole sourcebook.
To ease access to more detailed information, the module includes many
references to the other sourcebook modules.
The authors, Holger Dalkmann and Charlotte Brannigan, work at the Centre for
Sustainability (C4S) at the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), UK. The
module can be downloaded from the link below
Link:
http://www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=383
Kind regards
Sunny
--
*Santhosh (Sunny) Kodukula*
Project Assistant
GTZ ? Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP)
0942, Transport and Tourism Division,
UNITED NATIONS, ESCAP Building,
Rajadamnern Nok Ave.,
Bangkok 10200, THAILAND
Ph: +66 (0)2 288 1321
Fax: +66 (0)2 280 6042
Mob:+66 (0)84 113 0181
Email: santhosh.kodukula [at] sutp.org
Skype: sunny_nwho
Web: http://www.sutp.org
From edelman at greenidea.eu Thu Oct 25 19:35:15 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:35:15 +0200
Subject: [sustran] Shell Nominated for Worst Greenwash / Shell, BRT,
carfree and wildlife photos
Message-ID: <47207163.2050408@greenidea.eu>
In the 'Worst EU Lobby Awards', Royal Dutch Shell has been nominated for
suggesting that their oil refineries emit flowers, not smoke....but this
Royal Green Shower of Shell is also dripping down in the form of
sponsorship of bus rapid transit projects, a conference about carfree
cities, and wildlife photography contests in government-run museums...
It is not just about deceptive advertising... it's obviously also
Greenwash when a multinational corporation which makes USD 26 billion
profit in one year - in large part due to worldwide personal
automobilisation - gives just a couple million to sustainable transport
or other projects, and tries to then pass itself off as a responsible
company.
Find out more... don't be scared to kick a gift horse in the mouth:
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net
From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon Oct 29 03:36:04 2007
From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric.britton)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:36:04 +0100
Subject: [sustran] "When the facts change, sir,
I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Message-ID: <004e01c81991$6e3fb3c0$4abf1b40$@britton@ecoplan.org>
[If you have comments kindly send to NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com. Thank
you.]
Dear World Wide Colleagues,
You are all very knowledgeable about this, so let me try the following harsh
statement in quick summary form on you for size and comment. Please tell me
if and where I am wrong!
There are three things we have to do to get the needed huge reduction of
greenhouse gasses coming out of the transportation sector (in general and of
course in the cities):
1. A carbon tax. (Yes, yes. I know all the reasons why this "can't be
done". But hey! this is the one of the most powerful instruments at our
disposal .. and not only that, all the rest are some well-dressed
gentleman's favorite and sweetly profitable playthings)
2. A strong sharpening of CAFE standards. (We have to squeeze until the
pips squeak. That is to say that our objective is not to drive the sources
of innovation out of business, but radically to overhaul the nature of their
products and businesses, and this as quickly as they can under almost
wartime conditions manage. They will NOT like it, but we will chose the
levels that they can with great effort and genius achieve.)
3. Taking at least half of all the cars off the road. Forever. (And
almost all the cars out of the cities. and for sure all SOVs).
The best public policy would combine all three of these powerful motors.
The second best (which might be good enough) would combine two of the three.
And that's all there is to it!
Am I wrong in this? Please show me.
Eric Britton
From litman at vtpi.org Mon Oct 29 06:56:02 2007
From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:56:02 -0700
Subject: [sustran] "When the facts change, sir,
I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
In-Reply-To: <004e01c81991$6e3fb3c0$4abf1b40$@britton@ecoplan.org>
References: <004e01c81991$6e3fb3c0$4abf1b40$@britton@ecoplan.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20071028143001.0f69aaf0@mail.islandnet.com>
If your only objective is to reduce climate
change emissions, than all three options are
equally beneficial. However, if you are also
concerned about other planning objectives (such
as reducing traffic congestion, road and parking
facility costs, accidents, consumer costs and
sprawl; and improved mobility options for
non-drivers and public fitness and health), then
some emission reduction strategies are much
better than others. In general, strategies that
increase vehicle fuel efficiency or use of
alternative fuels provide only a couple benefits
(reduced energy consumption and pollution
emissions) while those that reduce motor vehicle
travel by improving travel options, rewarding use
of more efficient modes, and improving land use
accessibility, help achieve many benefits.
CAFE standards, which cause motorists to purchase
more efficient vehicles than they otherwise
would, tend to stimulate increased vehicle travel
(since they reduce the per-kilometer cost of
driving) and so tend to increase problems such as
traffic congestion, accidents, road and parking
facility costs and sprawl (see
http://www.vtpi.org/cafe.pdf ). A far better
approach is to implement "win-win transportation
solutions," which are market-based reforms that
increase transport system efficiency by reducing
distortions that stimulate economically excessive
automobile travel (see
http://www.vtpi.org/winwin.pdf ). These include
increased fuel taxes, road and parking pricing,
parking management, pay-as-you-drive vehicle
insurance and registration fees, least-cost
transportation planning, and improvements to
alternative modes (walking, cycling, ridesharing,
public transit, carsharing, telework and delivery services).
This is actually good news, because it helps
identify the strategies that are truly best
overall, and it provides a basis for building
cooperation among different interest groups. For
example, if you try to justify substantial
transportation policy reforms based only on
climate change emission reduction targets you may
find only modest support, among people and
organizations that consumer themselves
environmentalists. However, if you can show that
these reforms help achieve other transportation
planning objectives (congestion and accident
reductions, and facility cost savings), equity
objectives (improving transportation
affordability and mobility options for
non-drivers), and health objectives (increased
physical fitness and health), you might be able
to gain far broader political support.
The challenge we face is that most organizations
and people apply a narrow approach to problem
solving - they tend to consider just one problem
at a time, and tend to focus on competition for
resources with other interest groups (based on a
game called, "my problem is more important than
your problem") rather than searching for
opportunities for cooperation. We really do have
solutions that could solve these problems (for
example, win-win strategies that would achieve
the Kyoto targets while also achieving other
economic, social and environmental planning
objectives, see http://www.vtpi.org/wwclimate.pdf ).
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman
At 11:36 AM 10/28/2007, eric.britton wrote:
>[If you have comments kindly send to
>NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com.
>Thank you.]
>
>Dear World Wide Colleagues,
>
>You are all very knowledgeable about this, so
>let me try the following harsh statement in
>quick summary form on you for size and
>comment. Please tell me if and where I am wrong!
>
>There are three things we have to do to get the
>needed huge reduction of greenhouse gasses
>coming out of the transportation sector (in
>general and of course in the cities):
>
>1. A carbon tax. (Yes, yes. I know all the
>reasons why this ?can?t be done?. But hey! this
>is the one of the most powerful instruments at
>our disposal .. and not only that, all the rest
>are some well-dressed gentleman?s favorite and sweetly profitable playthings)
>
>2. A strong sharpening of CAFE standards.
>(We have to squeeze until the pips squeak. That
>is to say that our objective is not to drive the
>sources of innovation out of business, but
>radically to overhaul the nature of their
>products and businesses, and this as quickly as
>they can under almost wartime conditions
>manage. They will NOT like it, but we will
>chose the levels that they can with great effort and genius achieve.)
>
>3. Taking at least half of all the cars off
>the road. Forever. (And almost all the cars out
>of the cities
and for sure all SOVs).
>
>The best public policy would combine all three
>of these powerful motors. The second best
>(which might be good enough) would combine two of the three.
>
>And that?s all there is to it!
>
>Am I wrong in this? Please show me.
>
>Eric Britton
>
>
>__._,_.___
>
>_________________________________________________________
>The Kyoto 20/20 Cities Challenge:
>http://kyotocities.org
>A single ambitious environmental objective for your city:
>*** A 20% improvement in 20 months, and within budget. ***
>
>Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
>(It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
>
>
>
>Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
>Change
>settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
>Change settings via email:
>Delivery: Digest>Switch delivery to Daily Digest
>|
>Delivery Format: Fully Featured>Switch to Fully Featured
>Visit
>Your Group |
>Yahoo! Groups
>Terms of Use |
>Unsubscribe
>
>
>__,_._,___
Sincerely,
Todd Alexander Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity?
From yo_susilo at yahoo.com Mon Oct 29 20:30:41 2007
From: yo_susilo at yahoo.com (Yusak Susilo)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [sustran] TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT 2008
Message-ID: <313008.7199.qm@web50304.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Dear all,
Apologize for cross-posting.
Please find the call for paper for the forthcoming Travel Demand management 2008 symposium.
Please kindly distribute this call for papers to colleagues, experts and researchers interested in and dealing with TDM-measures as well.
Kind regards,
Yusak
__________________________________________________________
Dr. Yusak O. Susilo
Centre for Transport and Society
University of the West of England
Frenchay Campus, Bristol, BS16 1QY
United Kingdom
Tel. + 44 (0) 117 328 6446
Fax. + 44 (0) 117 328 3002
Email: Yusak.Susilo@uwe.ac.uk
Website: www.transport.uwe.ac.uk
----------------------------
Call for Papers for 4th International Symposium on TDM2008 in Vienna
?Visions, Concepts and Experiences of Travel Demand Management?
Dear colleagues,
We invite you to submit a paper/abstract to the 4th International Symposium on Travel Demand Management (http://www.TDM2008-Vienna.at). This international symposium will take place in Vienna, Austria on July 16th to July 18th, 2008 and continues the series of symposia on travel demand management (TDM) held in the UK in 1998, 2003 and 2005:
The deadlines are the following:
Submissions of paper: December, 17th 2007
Acceptance: February 15th, 2008
Early bird registration March 17th, 2008
Final registration: April, 21st, 2008
Please send us your abstract with the provided template by e-mail to TDM2008@boku.ac.at. If the deadlines are too tight and you need more time, let us know about a suitable time for you and I will inform you if it is feasible for us.
Best regards,
Mike Bell, Wafaa Saleh, Gerd Sammer
This email was independently scanned for viruses by McAfee anti-virus software and none were found
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
From edelman at greenidea.eu Tue Oct 30 03:09:20 2007
From: edelman at greenidea.eu (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:09:20 +0100
Subject: [sustran] Public Transport: More Self-Harming Adverts and Positive
Images in Popular Culture
Message-ID: <472621D0.8010705@greenidea.eu>
Sorry for any crossposting...
New for October, freshly plucked from the You Tube sea, I bring you...
I am curious if this is unremarkable in the market where it aired, and
when that was...
See entire selection at:
Thanks for viewing!
- T
--
--------------------------------------------
Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory
Korunn? 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic
Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
edelman@greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net