<html> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> This will have disastrous social consequences in both cities. I suppose over time the system will adapt with the increase in paratransit services (also hardly free from criminal behaviors!) and perhaps bicycles, but in the short term hundreds of thousands if not millions of people will face longer commutes and loss of income, and the loss of a valuable asset’s value (the motorbike itself). Surely if the problem is crime they should attack the crime problem, and not intervene in the traffic system. I am sure criminals will be able to afford vans next time.   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 joshua odeleye Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 10:30 AM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustran-discuss Digest, Vol 36, Issue 27   <div> Dear All, </div> <div> What a coincident?Commercial motorcycles operation which happened to be a major means of urban transport in Nigerian cities have just been restricted within the hour of 6.00am-7.00pm in the city of Lagos..This is as a result of  the nefarious activities of some of the operatives who aid and abbet crimes,particularly at night.While the enforcement last, majority of people, i.e the urban poor,who depend largely on this means of transport feel the pain most.They have resulted to long distance trekking.Could someone tell me if this approach in addressing an aspect of urban crime is Sustainable? </div> <div> Regards, </div> <div> JOSHUA ODELEYE. </div> <div> NIGERIAN INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY, </div> <div> ZARIA,NIGERIA.  sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org wrote: </div> <blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt; margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> Send Sustran-discuss mailing list submissions to sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to sustran-discuss-request@list.jca.apc.org You can reach the person managing the list at sustran-discuss-owner@list.jca.apc.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Sustran-discuss digest..." ######################################################################## Sustran-discuss Mailing List Digest IMPORTANT NOTE: When replying please do not include the whole digest in your reply - just include the relevant part of the specific message that you are responding to. Many thanks. About this mailing list see: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss ######################################################################## Today's Topics: 1. Motorbike ban - Kigali (Eric Britton) 2. Keep Driving... (Eric Britton) 3. Re: Keep Driving... (chuwa) 4. Re: [LotsLessCars] Keep Driving... (Carlos F. Pardo SUTP) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:45:25 +0200 From: "Eric Britton" <ERIC.BRITTON@ECOPLAN.ORG>Subject: [sustran] Motorbike ban - Kigali To: <LOTSLESSCARS@YAHOOGROUPS.COM>, <GLOBALSOUTH@YAHOOGROUPS.COM>, <SUSTRAN-DISCUSS@JCA.APC.ORG>Cc: oscar_kim2000@yahoo.co.uk Message-ID: <010f01c6cb3f$1ff20250$6501a8c0@Home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Motorbike ban long overdue By Oscar Kimanuka It is now official. No more commercial motorcyclists, commonly known as boda boda or "motor," will be allowed in Kigali's city centre. The decision was arrived at after consultations between the City Council, Ministry of Infrastructure, and Local Government and the police. The decision has been welcomed by many Kigali residents, who for some time have viewed the motorcyclists as a nuisance. The cyclists have been blamed for the increasing number of thefts in a city that has a reputation for being one of the safest in the region. It is hoped that the directive from city authorities will be sustainable and not one of those episodic, knee-jerk responses that are soon ignored. One of the major reasons advanced by the Kigali city fathers for the ban was the sharp rise in accidents, thefts, harassment and other related petty crimes. Motorcycles are only allowed in designated areas outside the city. The motor cycle sector in Kigali has provided employment to many young people who have found it easy to operate owing to the reasonably low cost of investment. A secondhand motorcycle, for example, cost $1,000 or less. However, the operator of the motorcycle is not usually the owner. He acquires the motorcycle on a loan and raises the money through daily collections to pay back pay off the debt. The original owner buys another bike, and through this reproductive system, the population of "motors" on Kigali streets has grown phenomenally. Incidentally, this practice is not confined to Kigali. This is common in many African cities, including Kampala, where there are thousands of boda bodas that have become a convenient mode of transport for passengers who are tired of the traffic jams on many of the city roads. These boda bodas, however, have neither regard for traffic rules nor respect for other people. I am not sure of anyone, particularly a car owner who has ever encountered a disciplined or polite motorcyclist. Now what is remaining is the enforcement of this new regulation for the safety of residents of Kigali. To begin with a "motor" regulatory task-force should be established to oversee enforcement of this regulation. Oscar Kimanuka is a commentator on social and economic issues based in Kigali. Email: oscar_kim2000@yahoo.co.uk Source: http://www.nationmedia.com/eastafrican/current/Opinion/Opinion2808064.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060829/edbd402f/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:11:20 +0200 From: "Eric Britton" <ERIC.BRITTON@ECOPLAN.ORG>Subject: [sustran] Keep Driving... To: <WORLDTRANSPORT@YAHOOGROUPS.COM>, <NEWMOBILITYCAFE@YAHOOGROUPS.COM>Cc: Sustran-discuss@jca.apc.org Message-ID: <014201c6cb53$7b962780$6501a8c0@Home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Anzir Boodoo On 29 Aug 2006, at 07:02, Jo?o Lacerda wrote: > I am very curious to know some thoughts of our British friends > concerning this issue. (see article below) Jo?o, So, it's OK to use your car as much as you want, because it's now carbon neutral. So there is no environmental reason to stop using your car... Problems: 1. Carbon emission offsets are no longer considered environmentally equivalent to burning less fuel in the first place 2. An average aggregate of CO2 emitted takes no account of whether the car burning the fuel is a Prius or a Hummer 3. Likewise, emissions in urban areas with heavy traffic probably have much higher direct impacts than in open rural areas where they can dissipate quickly. Of course, this is also ignoring the interaction between emissions and atmospheric conditions... the impact of a unit of CO2 emission can vary depending on where it is emitted. 4. This also ignores CO, NOx and SOx. So even if you are carbon neutral, CO is not friendly, and NOx and SOx are still not neutral. 5. If a significant number of people signed up to this, would there be enough space to plant the trees? GBP 20 a year seems far too low to me... I assume saplings (small trees) do not soak up huge amounts of CO2, so it will take many years for the full effect of the "carbon sink" to work... in this period of years, what happens to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, and is it recoverable by the trees in 10-20 years from now? 6. How does this work in terms of Kyoto? Or is everyone quietly forgetting that now (forgive me for being rude and actually being bothered about the whole thing...) 7. If everybody is happy to drive their cars when and where they want (since it's now "carbon neutral"), will people ignore the effects of traffic (not just pollution, but stress and wasted time)? I think it's an interesting start, but is it starting us in the right direction? After all, I assume BP only has a certain amount of fuel, which is going to run out soon... BP Launches Carbon Neutral Scheme for Drivers > http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=37818 UK: August 24, 2006 LONDON - British motorists will be able to neutralise their CO2 emissions by paying an average 20 pounds a year towards offsetting their pollution after oil company BP launched a new Internet scheme on Wednesday. Drivers will be able to calculate their annual CO2 emissions using the www.targetneutral.com Web site and help fund environmental projects like wind farms. An average car, driven 10,000 miles a year, will generate about four tonnes of CO2, about enough to fill a medium-sized hot air balloon. To neutralise this amount of carbon emissions would cost about 20 pounds. "Targetneutral is a practical and straightforward step that BP is taking to enable drivers to help the environment," said BP's UK Director Peter Mather. "BP is taking the lead because our extensive research shows that there is a huge consumer demand for such a scheme, but a general feeling from customers that they 'don't know where to start,'" he added in a statement. Motorists' money from the targetneutral scheme, excluding VAT and payment transaction costs, will be used to buy CO2 emission reductions via the purchase of carbon credits. BP, which has provided the start-up funding and will pay for running costs, will not receive any money. The company will also make a direct contribution to targetneutral when motorists using the scheme buy BP petrol using a Nectar loyalty card. The money generated from targetneutral will be used for a range of environmental projects including alternative and renewable energy -- such as biomass, wind farms and methane capture schemes. Offsetting schemes have become increasingly popular in recent years, but some environmentalists are critical of them, saying reducing emissions should be the top priority. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060829/9a073c30/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 05:03:35 -0700 (PDT) From: chuwa <CHUWASG@YAHOO.COM>Subject: [sustran] Re: Keep Driving... To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org, Global 'South' Sustainable Transport <SUSTRAN-DISCUSS@LIST.JCA.APC.ORG>Message-ID: <20060829120335.53740.qmail@web36915.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I am more than happy to pay 25 pounds or more a year to stop anyone driving around my house. The money should go to improve facilities for non-motorized transport. Eric Britton <ERIC.BRITTON@ECOPLAN.ORG>wrote: Anzir Boodoo On 29 Aug 2006, at 07:02, Jo?o Lacerda wrote: > I am very curious to know some thoughts of our British friends > concerning this issue. (see article below) Jo?o, So, it's OK to use your car as much as you want, because it's now carbon neutral. So there is no environmental reason to stop using your car... Problems: 1. Carbon emission offsets are no longer considered environmentally equivalent to burning less fuel in the first place 2. An average aggregate of CO2 emitted takes no account of whether the car burning the fuel is a Prius or a Hummer 3. Likewise, emissions in urban areas with heavy traffic probably have much higher direct impacts than in open rural areas where they can dissipate quickly. Of course, this is also ignoring the interaction between emissions and atmospheric conditions... the impact of a unit of CO2 emission can vary depending on where it is emitted. 4. This also ignores CO, NOx and SOx. So even if you are carbon neutral, CO is not friendly, and NOx and SOx are still not neutral. 5. If a significant number of people signed up to this, would there be enough space to plant the trees? GBP 20 a year seems far too low to me... I assume saplings (small trees) do not soak up huge amounts of CO2, so it will take many years for the full effect of the "carbon sink" to work... in this period of years, what happens to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, and is it recoverable by the trees in 10-20 years from now? 6. How does this work in terms of Kyoto? Or is everyone quietly forgetting that now (forgive me for being rude and actually being bothered about the whole thing...) 7. If everybody is happy to drive their cars when and where they want (since it's now "carbon neutral"), will people ignore the effects of traffic (not just pollution, but stress and wasted time)? I think it's an interesting start, but is it starting us in the right direction? After all, I assume BP only has a certain amount of fuel, which is going to run out soon... BP Launches Carbon Neutral Scheme for Drivers > http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=37818 UK: August 24, 2006 LONDON - British motorists will be able to neutralise their CO2 emissions by paying an average 20 pounds a year towards offsetting their pollution after oil company BP launched a new Internet scheme on Wednesday. Drivers will be able to calculate their annual CO2 emissions using the www.targetneutral.com Web site and help fund environmental projects like wind farms. An average car, driven 10,000 miles a year, will generate about four tonnes of CO2, about enough to fill a medium-sized hot air balloon. To neutralise this amount of carbon emissions would cost about 20 pounds. "Targetneutral is a practical and straightforward step that BP is taking to enable drivers to help the environment," said BP's UK Director Peter Mather. "BP is taking the lead because our extensive research shows that there is a huge consumer demand for such a scheme, but a general feeling from customers that they 'don't know where to start,'" he added in a statement. Motorists' money from the targetneutral scheme, excluding VAT and payment transaction costs, will be used to buy CO2 emission reductions via the purchase of carbon credits. BP, which has provided the start-up funding and will pay for running costs, will not receive any money. The company will also make a direct contribution to targetneutral when motorists using the scheme buy BP petrol using a Nectar loyalty card. The money generated from targetneutral will be used for a range of environmental projects including alternative and renewable energy -- such as biomass, wind farms and methane capture schemes. Offsetting schemes have become increasingly popular in recent years, but some environmentalists are critical of them, saying reducing emissions should be the top priority. -------------------------------------------------------- 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'). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060829/0e7336dc/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:55:56 -0500 From: "Carlos F. Pardo SUTP" <CARLOS.PARDO@SUTP.ORG>Subject: [sustran] Re: [LotsLessCars] Keep Driving... To: <LOTSLESSCARS@YAHOOGROUPS.COM>, "'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'" <SUSTRAN-DISCUSS@LIST.JCA.APC.ORG>, <NEWMOBILITYCAFE@YAHOOGROUPS.COM>Message-ID: <01fc01c6cbbe$4c6db200$0200a8c0@archibaldo> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" But, from what I understand, the environment is not the only reason to stop using cars (or to use them less). There?s also accidents, inequity, excessive use of roadspace, etc. Thus, even if a car is zero-emissions, it would still pose problems! Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel: +57 (1) 215 7812 Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 e-mail: <mailto:carlos.pardo_x0040_sutp.org>carlos.pardo@sutp.org P?gina: <HTTP: www.sutp.org/>www.sutp.org _____ De: LotsLessCars@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LotsLessCars@yahoogroups.com] En nombre de Anzir Boodoo Enviado el: Martes, 29 de Agosto de 2006 04:45 a.m. Para: LotsLessCars@yahoogroups.com Asunto: Re: [LotsLessCars] Keep Driving... Jo?o, On 29 Aug 2006, at 07:02, Jo?o Lacerda wrote: > I am very curious to know some thoughts of our british friends > concerning this issue. (below) So, it's OK to use your car as much as you want, because it's now carbon neutral. So there is no environmental reason to stop using your car... Problems: 1. Carbon emission offsets are no longer considered environmentally equivalent to burning less fuel in the first place 2. An average aggregate of CO2 emitted takes no account of whether the car burning the fuel is a Prius or a Hummer 3. Likewise, emissions in urban areas with heavy traffic probably have much higher direct impacts than in open rural areas where they can dissipate quickly. Of course, this is also ignoring the interaction between emissions and atmospheric conditions... the impact of a unit of CO2 emission can vary depending on where it is emitted. 4. This also ignores CO, NOx and SOx. So even if you are carbon neutral, CO is not friendly, and NOx and SOx are still not neutral. 5. If a significant number of people signed up to this, would there be enough space to plant the trees? GBP 20 a year seems far too low to me... I assume saplings (small trees) do not soak up huge amounts of CO2, so it will take many years for the full effect of the "carbon sink" to work... in this period of years, what happens to the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, and is it recoverable by the trees in 10-20 years from now? 6. How does this work in terms of Kyoto? Or is everyone quietly forgetting that now (forgive me for being rude and actually being bothered about the whole thing...) 7. If everybody is happy to drive their cars when and where they want (since it's now "carbon neutral"), will people ignore the effects of traffic (not just pollution, but stress and wasted time)? I think it's an interesting start, but is it starting us in the right direction? After all, I assume BP only has a certain amount of fuel, which is going to run out soon... > BP Launches Carbon Neutral Scheme for Drivers > http://www.planetar <HTTP: dailynewsstory.cfm_x003f_newsid="37818" www.planetark.org>k.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=37818 > > > BP Launches Carbon Neutral Scheme for Drivers > > LONDON - British motorists will be able to neutralise their CO2 > emissions by paying an average 20 pounds a year towards offsetting > their pollution after oil company BP launched a new Internet scheme > on Wednesday. > > Drivers will be able to calculate their annual CO2 emissions using > the www.targetneutral.com Web site and help fund environmental > projects like wind farms. > > An average car, driven 10,000 miles a year, will generate about > four tonnes of CO2, about enough to fill a medium-sized hot air > balloon. To neutralise this amount of carbon emissions would cost > about 20 pounds. > > "Targetneutral is a practical and straightforward step that BP is > taking to enable drivers to help the environment," said BP's UK > Director Peter Mather. > > "BP is taking the lead because our extensive research shows that > there is a huge consumer demand for such a scheme, but a general > feeling from customers that they 'don't know where to start,'" he > added in a statement. > > Motorists' money from the targetneutral scheme, excluding VAT and > payment transaction costs, will be used to buy CO2 emission > reductions via the purchase of carbon credits. BP, which has > provided the start-up funding and will pay for running costs, will > not receive any money. > > The company will also make a direct contribution to targetneutral > when motorists using the scheme buy BP petrol using a Nectar > loyalty card. > > The money generated from targetneutral will be used for a range of > environmental projects including alternative and renewable energy > -- such as biomass, wind farms and methane capture schemes. > > Offsetting schemes have become increasingly popular in recent > years, but some environmentalists are critical of them, saying > reducing emissions should be the top priority. > > Story Date: 24/8/2006 __._,_.___ Messages <HTTP: _x0038_20_x003b__ylc="X3oDMTMyYWs3c29<br" message LotsLessCars group groups.yahoo.com>2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMjU5MTAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwNzI0ODc0BG1zZ0lkAzgyMQR zZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNTY4NDUzMjAEdHBjSWQDODIw> in this topic (2) <HTTP: LotsLessCars group groups.yahoo.com post_x003b__ylc="X3oDMTJvMWZtazB2BF9TAz<br">k3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMjU5MTAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwNzI0ODc0BG1zZ0lkAzgyMQRzZWMDZn RyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExNTY4NDUzMjA-?act=reply&messageNum=821> Reply (via web post) | Start <HTTP: LotsLessCars group groups.yahoo.com post_x003b__ylc="X3oDMTJlaWJsMG42BF9TAz<br">k3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEwMjU5MTAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwNzI0ODc0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cG === message truncated === </blockquote> </HTTP:></HTTP:></HTTP:></HTTP:></mailto:carlos.pardo_x0040_sutp.org> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:center'> <hr size=1 width="100%" align=center> </div> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman1/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39663/*http:/voice.yahoo.com">Make PC-to-Phone Calls</a> to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. </div> </body> </html>