<html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> Dear Colleagues,   There are now going on two hundred <a href="http://www.newmoblitybriefs.org/general/measures.htm">New Mobility measures and actions</a> which we have thus far identified with your help for treatment under the <a href="http://www.newmoblitybriefs.org/">New Mobility Advisory/Briefs</a> and while we are already committed to the <a href="file:///C:\Web\www\briefs\general\vol1no1-carsharing.htm">Carsharing City Strategies</a> and BRT for the first two numbers, the topic of precisely “Public transport should be free” has over these last days has moved up toward the head of the list for the planned four first year editions. I mention this to you this morning since it will, as with just about everything done here, be very much a collaborative endeavor and is one that just possibly may interest you..   However our approach in this particular case will be a bit different from our usual starting point and method, which is to provide an informed expert view based on leading edge international experience and knowledge to provide an informed but neutral appraisal of the measure, so as to inform city government and local leaders so that they can make a wise decision as to eventual next steps.  And then to get them started in this proves.   In “Public transport should be free” we intend to turn this around a bit. We shall take the title as a positive statement, a challenge and our leading premise -- and then investigate and analyze whether in fact this may or may not make any sense for 21st century cities under duress. And if so, how.   I might note that just about all the analyses in the past (see Barbara Post’s biblio of yesterday by way of first example) have started out well in the box of the existing institutional and financial situation as far as public transport provision is concerned – and then variously  to wiggle it a bit to see what, within this quite constraining box, would be likely to happen if the city tried to do just that. With the results that it should not be terribly difficult to anticipate in advance.  And since you are well installed in that box, not surprising that the conclusion is inevitably either (a) it won’t work (here and then come the long list of reasons and justifications) or, at times, (b) we might give it a try on this bit of the system (specific routes, hours, user groups).   But since we are dealing here with the politics of transportation and problem-solving in a heavily charged and troublesome environment, it seems that the least we can do is step beyond that traditional box and start by setting out the fundamental considerations that in truth set the stage, a bit along the lines that Dave Wetzel has done in his yesterday’s email to the group. What is it that we want behind all this? How important are those objectives to the community? What are the (full) means at our disposal (and we are not talking about fare boxes or balancing micro-budgets here)? Etc.   So the goal of this future New Mobility Advisory will be to take it from the top. And we very much hope that you will be interested to participate. With your idea, and perhaps even to join our little editorial group that will be keeping an eye on all this to ensure its quality and professionalism.   Eric Britton   PS. And if anyone wishes to drag in the tired finger-pointing language of left or right, socialist or whatever to simplify and eventually ridicule these important considerations, they will I promise lose a start.  And you know how that can hurt. Measured mentions of sustainable development and social justice, and better economics for all, will on the other hand certainly have their place here. </div> </body> </html>