[sustran] Re: CfM strategy discussion

[Dr. Rainer Rothfuss]

   Dear Eric,

   I would suggest that in "Cities for Mobility" we follow BOTH  
strategies at the SAME time:

   1.) "MASSIVE REDUCTION OF CAR TRAFFIC IN CITIES" as you called it

   AND

   2.) GREENING OF THE REMAINING MOTORISED INDIVIDUAL TRANSPORT.

   From the beginning of the existence of our network (established  
with financial support from the EU in 1999 as URB-AL network with  
roughly 250 members from 30 European and Latin American countries -  
the past two years these two figures doubled) we have put much more  
emphasis on "reduction of car traffic in cities" than on motorised  
individual transport (no project at all in this field out of a total  
of 10 until 2008!! --> see list of concluded projects:  
http://www.cities-for-mobility.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=41&Itemid=185).

   Point 2.) is extremely important in my eyes! Because we won't  
witness that industry gives up producing cars and earning big money  
with mobility voluntarily. It's also unlikely that people worldwide  
stop wishing to have a car  (we are talking about potentially 4  
billion people in developing countries who never owned a car). THE  
VEHICLES THAT ARE PRODUCED TODAY WILL REMAIN FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS ON  
THE ROADS OF THIS PLANET AND THE ONES PLANNED TODAY WILL REMAIN THERE  
FOR ANOTHER 40 YEARS TO COME!! So how shouldn't we care about this  
crucial fact?

   Regarding the settlement structure: 50% OF THE WORLD POPULATION  
STILL LIVES IN RURAL AREAS THAT ARE HARD TO COVER WITH PUBLIC  
TRANSPORT SERVICES (--> high CO2 emissions per passenger due to scarce  
users in rich countries that can afford subsidies and bad service in  
poor countries). For a disperse population light and energy efficient  
vehicles for individual motorised transport may be the most rational  
solution where the bicycle doesn't do the job due to distances or loads!

   What you call "strategic policy and management" is important. But  
to be honest, it wasn't so much Mobility Management or awareness  
raising that made people e.g. in Los Angeles starting to use public  
transport rather than their private car in the past 2 years. It was  
the rocketing gas prices!

   So I think that it's a whole bundle of measures that we need to  
take into consideration when we want to achieve improvements in the  
highly complex field of mobility.

   For Cities for Mobility I just see the PROBLEM THAT IN THE PAST 2  
YEARS WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PRO-ACTIVE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE  
NON-MOTORISED MOBILITY SECTION!

   Please use the open discussion forum "Cities for Mobility" and give  
us useful inputs on applicable strategies how to reduce car traffic in  
cities on a regular basis! We all would appreciate that a lot!  
Everyone should contribute with his/her strengths in a decentralised  
network in order to keep all represented perspectives in a balance!

   Best regards,

   Rainer Rothfuss

-----------------------
Join the Cities for Mobility online forum:
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/Cities-for-Mobility
Cities-for-Mobility-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
-----------------------

Dr. Rainer Rothfuss
Coordinator of International Relations
-----------------------
Coordination Office
Cities for Mobility
State Capital Stuttgart
-----------------------
Postal address:
D-70161 Stuttgart
GERMANY
Tel.: +49-8381-891-68 38
Fax: +49-8381-891-68 39
Mob: +49-177-894 08 04
Skype: rainer.rothfuss
rothfuss at cities-for-mobility.net
www.cities-for-mobility.netMessage from Eric Britton  
<eric.britton at ecoplan.org>:

> Re: Commentary on future role and contribution of CfM - and what we all can
> do about it.
>
>
>
> Dear Friends,
>
>
>
> This topic has been extremely interesting information and views on a number
> of grounds, and as you seen has in effect split into two sets of
> considerations. The first directly addressing the CDM issues -- and the
> second concerning the role and contribution of the Cities for Mobility (CfM)
> program from Stuttgart. I think both conversations are terrific but in this
> note would like just to share with you a few thoughts on the latter.
>
>
>
> I've been following the CfM program from its origins in with great interest
> including for the reasons that Brian Williams has pointed out: the fact that
> in a world of many strongly felt, urgent needs it's probably not a wise idea
> to eliminate possible sources of new ideas, new competences and new energy,
> just because we may not always agree with them. We also need to bear in mind
> that in this time of so many fundamental challenges and shifts, all of us
> are continually adapting to the new information and situation as we go
> along. Were we not to do this, we would be pretty poor souls indeed.
>
>
>
> That said, let me comment briefly on two aspects of the CfM program as I
> understand it.
>
>
>
> Let's start with the critical commentary concerning the thrust of the
> messages which are being sent out from the organization's headquarters,
> which to some here are far too focused on vehicle technologies and fuels, as
> opposed to the more strategic policy and management aspects which indeed
> hold the key to the system sustainability.  We all here understand that the
> key to the issues of reforming transport in cities lies specifically and
> above all to the massive reduction of car traffic in cities -- and not to
> new kinds of vehicles or new and cleaner kinds of fuels. That is not to say
> that these last are not desirable and do not have a role in the longer-term,
> but the real challenges lie in doing something about this in the next months
> and couple of years directly ahead. This is something you either agree with
> or don't, but I read the position of most of those participating in our
> several related groups and discussions as agreeing with the importance of
> coming to grips with these issues without further delay.
>
>
>
> So, if I can, I would urge the organizers over there in Stuttgart to
> consider the idea of a major course change in the navigation under this
> program. To make it very simple, I would suggest that the orientation of all
> aspects of the program, those messages from their listserv group included,
> be now strongly oriented to issues of mobility management and the strategic
> details of managing the shift from what is essentially a car-based
> system/paradigm, to programs, modes and systems that offer a broad range of
> alternative ways of getting around in cities which are more efficient, more
> environmental, and more people and community friendly.
>
>
>
> That's the critical part, but there is considerably more to CfM than that.
> The real accomplishments of their program have to do with the extent to
> which they have over the last couple of years -- let's not forget it's quite
> a new program -- brought together hundreds of cities and partners in many
> parts of the world in a way that seems to have their attention. This is a
> considerable accomplishment and is one which is certainly the crux of their
> contribution.
>
>
>
> The challenge now is to build on this, and I think all of us here can have a
> role in this. So let's keep talking to each other about this, let's keep
> sharing our thoughts with the CfM organizers, and sure enough, some good
> things are going to come out of this. And they better had or otherwise we
> are in even deeper trouble!
>
>
>
> As always,
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>