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