From ob110ob at IDT.NET Wed Dec 3 02:12:01 1997 From: ob110ob at IDT.NET (ob110ob@IDT.NET) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 09:12:01 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: CLIMATE-ONLINE: Climate Online: URGENT ACTION!! Email Exxon Now!! References: <971201164404.ZM12735@unknown.zmail.host> Message-ID: <34844161.5084@idt.net> Nick Rau wrote: > > Dear Climate Online Campaigner > > **Urgent Action**Urgent Action**Urgent Action** > > Today marks the beginning of the most important climate negotiations > since the '92 Rio Summit. Without a commitment to urgent action, many > hundreds of thousands of people will suffer the impacts of dangerous > climate change. Progress is being blocked by the lobbying efforts of > fossil fuel industries bent on protecting their vested interests. > > Of the world's oil companies EXXON - ESSO has proved itself the most > determined to wreck international efforts to combat the problem of > climate change, and curb C02 pollution from fossil fuels. For more > information on Exxon, see the foot of this letter. > > Tell them what you think about their climate position. PLEASE SEND AN > EMAIL to Lee R. Raymond, Chairman and Chief Executive of Exxon, via: > Ian.W.Upson@Exxon.sprint.com > > Please send your message TODAY. Hundreds of other people around the > world will be doing the same. You are part of a huge global network of > concerned citizens dedicated to taking action to stop dangerous climate > change and protect the planet for future generations. > > **What you have to do:** > > To save time we have put together a message for you to forward to > Lee R. Raymond (see below). All you need to do is follow these > simple steps: > > 1) Press your forward button > 2) Put in the Exxon email address > 3) cc your message to us at: notify@foe.co.uk > 4) Create your own subject line (eg Act Now to Stop Climate Change) > 5) Before sending your message, delete everything outside the > asterisks, ie these instructions, leaving just the message to Exxon. > 6) Write your name at the bottom of the letter. > 7) Press your send button > > Friends of the Earth is providing daily updates from the climate > negotiations in Kyoto. Visit the Friends of the Earth Climate Web Site > on http://www.foe.co.uk/climatechange/index.html > > MESSAGE TO EXXON FOLLOWS: > ************************************************************************ > email address: Ian.W.Upson@Exxon.sprint.com > > Dear Lee R. Raymond > > At the UN climate negotiations now taking place in Kyoto, Japan, world > leaders will be considering proposals for the reduction of greenhouse > gas emissions. There is substantial scientific consensus that increased > emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels is making a > significant contribution to climate change, and that the economic > impacts of inaction outweigh those of implementing preventative > measures. > > The Global Climate Coalition is attempting to influence the outcome of > negotiations to prevent industrialised nations setting targets and > timetables to prevent dangerous climate change. > > Action by industrialised nations, as those responsible for the current > burden of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, is a necessary first step in > averting the climate change threat, and setting an example of good > practice for newly industrialising nations. > > I urge you to terminate your company's membership of the GCC, and to > instead support calls for a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions > from Annex 1 nations by 2005, as a first step in combatting what could > be global catastrophe. > > Yours sincerely > > (your name) > > ************************************************************************ > Read on for more information on Exxon's activities. > > On October 13th this year the Chairman of EXXON, Lee Raymond, stood up > > before an large international industry gathering in China and urged > > developing countries not to agree to limits on burning fossil fuels. > > Raymond insisted that 'the case for so called global warming is far > > from air tight'. Such statements of course contradict the world's top > > climate scientists {on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change > > (IPCC)} who stated in 1995 that 'there is now a discernible human > > impact on the world's climate'. > > > > Unfortunately for everyone who needs a stable climate Raymond also > > went on to urge developing countries (notably China) to address their > > environmental problems by 'increasing, not curtailing, the use of > > fossil fuels'. Perhaps a reference to EXXON - ESSO's designs on the > > emerging petrol markets of Asia. > > > > EXXON - ESSO have also been a major sponsor of the GCC. Dr Brian > > Flannery, former Chairman of the GCC, is directly employed by EXXON. > > > > The GCC, a fossil fuel industry lobby group, are at the forefront of a > > massive advertising (US$13M) and disinformation campaign in the US, > > attempting to derail climate negotiations with scare mongering about a > > mythical economic collapse from efforts to reduce consumption of > > fossil fuels such as oil. > > > > EXXON have also been involved in a gross duplicity in their > > destructive efforts. In his speech Raymond urges developing countries > > to increase, not curtail their C02 emissions. At the same time back > > home in the US EXXON have led the charge in demanding that > > these exact same developing countries should not be left out of any > > global agreements to reduce emissions, as this might unfairly impact > > on US industry. > > > > EXXON are one of the oldest and largest oil companies in the > > world, their petroleum sales amount to approximately 9% of total world > > sales. They generate around US$130billion per year, with Europe > > accounting for approximately US$40billion in sales. Their position on > > climate change is the most self-serving of any of the oil companies, > > and their wrecking efforts are extremely harmful to any possible > > international political solution to the climate change problem. From mobility at igc.apc.org Wed Dec 3 07:17:50 1997 From: mobility at igc.apc.org (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:17:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] GEF Transport Paper: Update Message-ID: <2.2.16.19971202180850.55dfde9e@pop.igc.org> An update on the GEF Transport paper "Draft Operational Program No. 11: Promoting Sustainable Transport Infrastructure." I have spoken to Mr. Ken King, of the GEF Secretariat, who is one of the senior people responsible for the redrafting of this document, which is to outline what the GEF will fund in the transport sector. He explained that the Draft Operational Program was pulled together by Mr. Ahuja, and it was discussed informally at a luncheon in D.C. and was circulated among some technical people, but that it has not even gone to the GEF Council and it is not yet, despite proclamations to the contrary, on the World Wide Web. He expects that the process of developing the final recommentations will take eleven months, (until next November), but rapid progress will be made in January - March of next year, so there is still plenty of time for us to make some input, and to establish a formal review procedure. His view was that the document was still too preliminary for highly detailed comments on the draft to be of much use. He also stressed that in terms of what the GEF ultimately does, it will have to fit closely within the confines of overall GEF objectives and criteria, and that these criteria have something to do with the currently limited nature of the draft's recommendations. We need to familiarize ourselves as much as possible with the current criteria. (we have old documents on this which we will reference, but if anyone has new info, please pass it on) Proposed Follow Up: Brian Williams will be in New York next week and is in possession of the draft document. I suggest I draft a letter under Brian's unofficial supervision responding to their draft in the constructive manner outlined above, circulate it for further comment among those interested, put specific response time-limits for comment, and draft a joint final document with as many signators as possible. The letter should be constructive and non-hostile, as they have been very willing to be cooperative and consultative in response to my inquiries, (my frustration on this score was the result of many of them being in Kyoto-fair enough) and should focus on the technical merits of what they are proposing to the greatest extent possible. It should also speak generally and not only about the draft letter which is highly provisional at this time, and indicate where we'd like to see it go. Our draft will have long quotes from the original so that those of you without the original document (since its not on the WEB, I guess that's everyone except Brian and Tomas of CEEC bankwatch-remarkable since U.S. govt cant even get hold of it) will have a good idea as to the flavor of the document. Further, Ken King suggested to me that several of us concerned about the redrafting of this document could meet and discuss its broad outlines. I suggested the week of January 12 - January 16th in Washington, as there will be a significant number of us in Washington at that time for the Transportation Research Board's annual meeting. We will then discuss the issues raised in the letter at that time, and use the occassion to set up some sort of broader consultative process, encouraging them to send their drafts to the sustran discuss list, to ceec bankwatch, etc. I suggest that we try and encourage the following people to attend the meeting: Tommy Seamans of the U.S. Department of Treasury (I will call him: he is responsible for GEF and supervises the U.S. govt position regarding all GEF matters; his presence or Mark Rentchler will force the Bank to take us seriously and set up a broader consultative process); EDF's Michael Replogle or Bruce Rich, IIEC's Chris Zegras or Julia Philpott or whoever else is available from there, ITDP (me), perhaps Larry Williams of Sierra Club, Dr. Setty Pendakur (ITDP's President), and whoever else is interested that is likely to be in Washington at that time, please let me know. It should not be too many people, but should also be sufficient numbers that we are taken seriously. We will also encourage that John Flora and Paul Guitink and a couple others from inside the Bank attend. The Bank will probably send a half dozen people, but we will confirm about who will attend after they tell me (sometime after 12/17 when their staff will have returned from Kyoto). After that meeting, we will send a summary of the meeting to the lists and discuss where to go from there. I was also told by Ms. Noreen Beg of the World Bank's GEF staff that the World Bank was also drafting its own proposed guidelines as to how the World Bank's transport lending can help realize GEF objectives. This document is being sent to me, and the same process could be used to comment simultaneously on this draft, which may also be important. ________________________________________________________________________________ The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) 115 West 30th Street, Suite 1205 New York, NY 10001 Tel 212-629 8001, Fax 212-629 8033 mobility@igc.apc.org From sarafrk at cbme.iitd.ernet.in Wed Dec 3 17:02:07 1997 From: sarafrk at cbme.iitd.ernet.in (Dr.Rajeev Saraf) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:32:07 +0530 (IST) Subject: [sustran] Exclusive bus lanes - curb side vs. centre In-Reply-To: <347EBF7B.2A68ABEC@ccms.ntu.edu.tw> Message-ID: Hello Jason, Your study looks very interesting and I am very much interested in getting all the details that you may have. I would appreciate if you could send us the same. In the meanwhile, I would like to compile a list of pros and cons for Curb side and Centre bus lanes and I would request your list. Thanks. ___________________________________________________________________________ Dr Rajeev Saraf | Urban and Transport Planner | SENIOR PROJECT SCIENTIST | PHONE : 91-11-6858703 APPLIED SYSTEM RESEARCH PROGRAM | EMAIL : sarafrk@cbme.iitd.ernet.in IIT DELHI 110016 | FAX : 91-11-6862037 INDIA | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Shyue Koong Chang (Jason) wrote: > > > Dr.Rajeev Saraf wrote: > > > Our minister just retuned from Curitiba where they have implemented > > exclusive bus lanes in the centre of the carriageway. We have been > > proposing a bus lane on both sides of the carriageway near the curb. > > We would like to know the pros and cons of one approach vs. the other? > > Under what conditions is one prefereed over the other. > > BTW, I am talking about Delhi and large number of people are using public > > transport ( bus -based). > > Any reference or comments would be appreciated. > > Thanks. > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Dr Rajeev Saraf | > > Urban and Transport Planner | > > SENIOR PROJECT SCIENTIST | PHONE : 91-11-6858703 > > APPLIED SYSTEM RESEARCH PROGRAM | EMAIL : sarafrk@cbme.iitd.ernet.in > > IIT DELHI 110016 | FAX : 91-11-6862037 > > INDIA | > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dear Dr. Saraf: > > I am conducting a project of assessing exclusive bus lane and network in > Taipei City. The more than 40 km exclusive bus lanes/network have been > completed and implemented in seven streets in Taipei for 14 months. Of which > two of them with total 7 km were designed on the second lane from the curb and > have been implemented for more than four years. Most of the new exclusive bus > lanes are designed and implemented in the center two lanes of the road. > > The main reason for the center lane design or "non curb" arrangement is that > we have heavy proportion of motorcycles. The exclusive bus lanes and network > is running very well. A recent evaluation indicates that the travel speeds > increase significantly for various modes, i.e., private car, taxi, > motorcycles. The bus ridership also increases from 1.75 million per day to 2.0 > million per day based on a before and after study. These results encourage our > transportation department to have a plan of expending the current network. > That is the project I am conducting now. > > I will send you some materials presenting the basic ideas of the system and a > preliminary assessment conducted two years ago. Please let me know if you need > further information. > > Sincerely, > > Jason > -- > Shyue Koong Chang (Jason) > Professor > ------------------------------ > Transportation Division > Department of Civil Engineering > National Taiwan University > Phone: 886-2-3625920 ext.304 > Fax: 886-2-3639990 > email: skchang@ccms.ntu.edu.tw > > > From chris at mailnet.rdc.cl Thu Dec 4 04:13:16 1997 From: chris at mailnet.rdc.cl (Christopher Zegras) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:13:16 -0300 Subject: [sustran] More News on Santiago's Tollroad Message-ID: <199712031913.QAA03116@mailnet.rdc.cl> Courtesy of Chipnews (www.chip.cl), Dec. 3. -- ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL REJECTS COSTANERA. The Advisory Board of the Regional Commission on the Environment (Corema) rejected Tuesday the environmental impact study (EIS) for the Costanera Norte highway project, one of the biggest public works projects in Santiago in the last decade. The EIS had been submitted by the Ministry of Public Works (MOP). The estimated US$330 million Costanera project, which would link Lo Barnechea with the western part of Santiago via high-speed roadway, has been under attack by environmental groups in upper-middle class neighborhoods like Providencia and Bellavista. Critics say the project will route heavy traffic right through some of Santiago's most quiet and residential communities. Others claim the project will pollute popular recreational areas like Cerro San Cristobal, under which the Costanera project proposes building a tunnel. The Advisory Board's decision is significant because all public and private industrial projects in Chile must submit and have approved an environmental study. Construction on such projects cannot begin until their EIS is approved by Corema. The Advisory Board's decision, however, is only one of three inputs through which Corema will make a final pronouncement on the project. The other two deal with meetings with technicians from the Public Works and Finance Ministries on the feasibility of the plan and a report providing feedback from citizens who would potentially be affected by the highway. No dates have been set for the submission of these remaining reports, stumping observers as to when Corema will make a final call on the Costanera. President Frei originally said the bidding process on the construction and administration of the project would begin on December 15, but he has since pushed the date back to April 28. Christopher Zegras http://www.iiec.org /\ /^\ Instituto Internacional para la Conservacion de Energia /^\ /_o\ / \ General Flores 150, Providencia, Santiago, CHILE /^^^/_\< /^^^^^\ Tel: (56 2) 236 9232 Fax: 236 9233 / (*)/(*) \ From chris at mailnet.rdc.cl Fri Dec 5 00:41:32 1997 From: chris at mailnet.rdc.cl (Christopher Zegras) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:41:32 -0300 Subject: [sustran] LONG: GEF Transport Paper: Update Message-ID: <199712041541.MAA14517@mailnet.rdc.cl> Dear Walter (and others), ***This is a little long for those of you not interested in the GEF Transport Conversation*** Walter, thanks for your excellent groundwork on this issue. I think your proposed strategy for letter drafting is good. I also very much like your idea of a consultation meeting during TRB week. I would very much like to participate in that. Remember in trying to schedule something that we have the NMT Committee meetings and related sessions, plus the Poverty Workshop at the Bank. I will cc: this e-mail to Tommy Semans at U.S. Treasury, as their participation would be very helpful. As you mention, it is very important that all of us who want to get involved familiarize ourselves as much as possible with the GEF. There is some decent information at the GEF web site: http://www.worldbank.org/html/gef/ which offers some institutional history and answers to some basic questions (I've posted the GEF introduction at the end of this very long e-mail). Amazingly enough, the home-page does not seem to have a copy of the GEF Operational Strategy (O.S.) posted. All I have down here is a copy of the Revised Draft Operational Strategy from Sept. 29, 1995. I assume that some close variation of this O.S. is currently guiding the GEF, since the currently relevant O.S. was adopted by the GEF Council in October 1995. There are some important points to consider for the GEF, in reference to why Mr. Ken King highlighted to Walter "that in terms of what the GEF ultimately does, it will have to fit closely within the confines of overall GEF objectives and criteria, and that these criteria have something to do with the currently limited nature of the draft's recommendations." Overall GEF strategy stresses activities which should: 1. be consistent with national priorities, 2. ensure sustainability of global environmental benefits, 3. reduce the risk caused by uncertainty, 4. complement traditional development funding, 5. facilitate effective responses by other entitities to address global envt. issues. Point 4 is important, since it is here where the concept of INCREMENTAL COSTS is raised. "The GEF provides new and additional grant and concessional funding to meet the agreed incremental costs of measures to achieve agreed global environmental benefits." ****From what I understand, this basically means that the GEF will only provide grants that cover the additional costs of a project to meet global environmental goals. For example, if an electric bus project in Santiago de Chile were to qualify for GEF financing, one would first have to net out the local environmental benefits (i.e., reduced air and noise pollution) before applying for a GEF grant. It is emphasized that the GEF should not be substitutes for regular sources of development finance. I think that these clauses are probably what are causing the STAP to be very restrictive in their transport recommendations. Most of what we would probably want the GEF to finance in transport (public transport prioritization, transport-efficient land development, NMT, road pricing, etc.), it could be argued, do not signify any "incremental costs" (i.e., the local development and environmental benefits should more than make these competitive). However, when one looks beyond the general strategy and into the specific recommendations for climate change (the GEF operations area where transport operations fall), there seems to be ample room for the GEF to be very creative in transportation. For example, under Long-term measures are included two strategies: 1. Removing implementation barriers for technologies. Here is included activities such as: building endogenous capacity, improving public awareness, and demonstrating and disseminating technologies and measures. ****Show me a developing or developed country where such activities in transport would not have major effect on transport emissions. Barriers mentioned include: price distortions, regulatory barriers and biases, lack of information, insufficient management capacity, inability to analyze non-traditional projects, high transaction costs, high initial costs, appropriation effects (investment benefits cannot be recovered by the agent that bears costs), etc. ****This is nearly a picture perfect listing of why practically nothing innovative ever occurs in urban transportation. The GEF could do wonders simply exposing price distortions in the transport market and implementing measures to overcome them. 2. Reducing the costs of promising technology. ****Here is where the tech. focus of the STAP is probably justified. But even here, the STAP has probably been a bit tunnel visioned. The most promising zero emission transport technology is non-motorized and this suffers from serious cost barriers: i.e., poor people can't afford to access these vehicles (lack of credit) and all users suffer from high real and perceived user costs (i.e., travel distances are too long and the unsafe, unhealthy, and unpleasant conditions often afflicting potential NMT users discourage use). The GEF could reduce these costs with "incremental" funding in traffic calming, neo-traditional development, etc. etc. For a strategy to deal with transportation, it is useful to look at the Operational Program for energy efficiency as a guide. After all, most energy efficiency measures are "win-win," which should make it difficult for the GEF to rationalize activity in this arena (i.e., there is no "incremental cost"). Nonetheless, the GEF defines the incremental cost of energy efficiency as the "costs of removing the barriers to energy-efficient technologies." "Measures aimed at removing the barriers to implementation will include assessment and analysis, information dissemination and awareness building, institutional reform and strengthening, policy adjustments, planning, and legislative and regulatory measures." ****Again, this is a perfect listing of what measures should be undertaken to improve, for example, urban transportation. The O.S. goes on to list needed steps for barrier removal in energy-efficiency, which could simply be transferred to the transportation sector: 1. Assess the economic scope for energy conservation and energy-efficient technologies and programs whose implementation is blocked by barriers. ****i.e., road pricing. 2. Estimate the contribution that such projects would make to reducing GHGs. ****i.e., developing appropriate models. 3. Identify all barriers, particularly energy pricing distortions. ****substitute transport for energy etc. etc. Drawing from the OPERATIONAL PROGRAM NUMBER 5, REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION, we find, at the risk of redundancy, almost a cookie cutter strategy for transportation: "GEF assistance will provide more sustainable benefits in those markets where severe energy price and other distortions do not tilt the playing field against energy efficiency and conservation. A macroeconomic and policy environment that allows and encourages fair competition is desirable for removing barriers. Each of these measures require a different mix of the following standard GEF modalities: (a) targeted research (e.g., adaptation to local conditions); (b) capacity building (e.g., financial evaluation); (c) institutional strengthening ( e.g., regulatory framework); (d) investments (e.g., demonstration projects); and (e) training (e.g., to operate, maintain demonstration sites Lack of information Lack of trained personnel or technical or managerial expertise Below long-run marginal cost pricing and other price distortions Regulatory biases or absence High transaction costs High initial capital costs or Lack of access to credit High user discount rates Mismatch of the incidence of investment costs and energy savings Higher perceived risks of the more-efficient technology" If this type of strategy was applied to transportation, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to limit GEF activities to a fuel alternative fuel options. It is also VERY IMPORTANT that the GEF energy efficiency operational program stresses public participation: "PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 5.22 One of ten basic operational principles of the GEF is that its projects provide for consultation with, and participation as appropriate of, the beneficiaries and affected groups of people. User participation, therefore, is envisaged for all projects. In many instances, the direct participants in projects in this Operational Program will be industries and parastatal organizations. In projects dealing with energy efficiency in rural areas, public participation of affected beneficiaries will not only be appropriate, but also essential for the success of the project. The GEF Council approved a paper on Public Involvement in GEF-Financed Projects that defines policies for information dissemination, consultation, and stakeholder participation in projects funded by the GEF." Introduction to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) The GEF provides grants and concessional funding to recipient countries for projects and programs that protect the global environment and promote sustainable economic growth. The Facility, originally set up as a pilot program in 1991, was restructured and replenished with over US$ 2 billion in 1994, to cover the agreed incremental costs of activities that benefit the global environment in four focal areas: climate change; biological diversity; international waters; and stratospheric ozone. Activities concerning land degradation, primarily desertification and deforestation, as they relate to the four focal areas, are also eligible for funding. Both the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity have designated the GEF as their funding mechanism on an interim basis. GEF projects and programs are managed through three implementing agencies: the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)and the World Bank. The GEF Secretariat, which is functionally independent from the three implementing agencies, reports to and services the Council and Assembly of the GEF. The GEF is striving for universal participation and currently 150 countries are participants. Countries may be eligible for GEF funds in one of two ways: (1) if they are eligible for financial assistance through the financial mechanism of either the Climate Change Convention or the Convention on Biological Diversity; or (2) if they are eligible to borrow from the World Bank (IBRD and/or IDA) or receive technical assistance grants from UNDP through a Country Programme. A country must be a party to the Climate Change Convention or the Convention of Biological Diversity to receive funds from the GEF in the relevant focal area. GEF projects must be country driven, incorporate consultation with local communities and, where appropriate, involve non-governmental organizations in project implementation. For more information, please see the Questions and Answers at this site. For detailed GEF project information, please see the Quarterly Operational Report. You can also link with the implementing agencies servers to access GEF project documents, and/or to obtain more information on GEF operations. For more information - or for hard copies of the documents on the GEF Server - please contact: The GEF Secretariat 1818 H Street, NW Washington D.C. 20433 USA Tel: (202) 473 8324 Fax: (202) 522 3240 or 522 3245 Christopher Zegras http://www.iiec.org /\ /^\ Instituto Internacional para la Conservacion de Energia /^\ /_o\ / \ General Flores 150, Providencia, Santiago, CHILE /^^^/_\< /^^^^^\ Tel: (56 2) 236 9232 Fax: 236 9233 / (*)/(*) \ From ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com Fri Dec 5 02:49:02 1997 From: ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com (Britton EcoPlan) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:49:02 -0500 Subject: [sustran] GEF Transport Paper: Update - Hook, Williams, et al Message-ID: <199712041249_MC2-2AB8-2B83@compuserve.com> Friends, In response to Walter Hook's "An update on the GEF Transport paper "Draft Operational Program No. 11: Promoting Sustainable Transport Infrastructure." of yesterday. However long that full position paper together with the ample extracts from the original might get, I hope very much that the focus will be on a strong,tightly argued, readable, common sense summary page or two that will present the central core of our argument and recommendation. This statement should be so readable, so intellectually and professionally attractive that all by itself it makes the case for what should be, I would hope, a basically unchallengeable argument for a truly sustainable transportation approach. I am pleased too that all of this is proceeding in a collaborative, consultative, non-confrontational manner. Bravo to you all for that. (I can't help though but look with wonder at the fact that it is going to take them a year to draft this statement with their final recommendations. Maybe someone should remind me as to what year this is. I had the impression that we were getting on to the year 2000. Obviously I must be mistaken.) With all good wishes, Eric Britton _________________________________________________________________ EcoPlan International -- Technology, Economics & Social Systems E-mail: postmaster@the-commons.org World Wide Web: http://www.ecoplan.org Day Phone: 331.4441.6340 (Also ISDN videoconference/groupwork) Day Fax : 331.4441.6341 ISDN Data: 331.4441.6342 Mobile Phone: 336.0737.7798 Postal: EcoPlan International Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara F-75006 Paris, France 24 hour backup Phone/Fax: 331.4326.1323 From tkpb at barter.pc.my Fri Dec 5 14:09:03 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:09:03 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Road crashes a growing world cause of death Message-ID: This was posted to the alt-transp list yesterday. It may be of interest here too. ======================================================= WASHINGTON, Dec 2 (Reuters) - 22:53 Tues.12-02-97 Traffic accidents -- now killing half a million people a year worldwide -- will soon be the world's third leading cause of death after heart disease and strokes, U.S. experts predicted on Tuesday. ``Traffic-related injuries and deaths are growing worldwide at an alarming rate, and even rising slightly in the United States despite stronger education and law enforcement efforts,'' U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater told a meeting in Washington. ``We must join together in a global traffic safety effort -- government and business, science and health professionals, the entertainment and media industries and everyday citizens -- to keep our streets safer and our families more secure,'' he said. Car accidents were the world's ninth ranked cause of death in 1990. Half a million people are already killed every year in car accidents, a report by the World Health Organization, the World Bank and the Harvard School of Public Health found. The report, compiled last year as part of the annual Global Burden of Disease study but being re-released at the conference, found that 15 million people were injured every year worldwide in traffic accidents. Most were young men - -- a growing population that will peak in the United States between 2005 and 2010. As poor countries develop their economies and their citizens use cars, accidents will cost more and more lives, conference organizer Hans Holst of Sweden's Royal Institute of Technology said. ``We have to make sure that as developing nations become more mobile, their people have access to injury prevention information,'' Holst told the conference. Slater said U.S. highway fatalities were down to 42,000 annually from the 50,000 who died in 1967 and gave credit to safer cars and seat belt laws that helped despite an enormous increase in traffic. ``But in 10 years, Americans will be driving even more,'' Slater said, as a result of increasing prosperity. ``The number of deaths will rise by 50 percent by the year 2020 if we fail to improve our current safety performance,'' he said. ^REUTERS@ From kwood at central.co.nz Sat Dec 6 07:05:01 1997 From: kwood at central.co.nz (Kerry Wood) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 10:05:01 +1200 Subject: [sustran] Road crashes a growing world cause of death Message-ID: Hi On 5/12 Paul Barter wrote: >Traffic accidents -- now killing half a million people a year worldwide -- >will soon be the world's third leading cause of death after heart disease and >strokes, U.S. experts predicted on Tuesday. Does this mean that motor vehicles are already the leading cause of death - if you include heart disease due to lack of exercise - bacause of always taking the car? Kerry Wood Transport Consultant Phone/fax + 64 4 801 5549 e-mail kwood@central.co.nz 1 McFarlane St Wellington 6001 New Zealand From tjb at pc.jaring.my Sat Dec 6 23:16:36 1997 From: tjb at pc.jaring.my (Tony Barry) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 22:16:36 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Road crashes a growing world cause of death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971206221636.0075f428@pop3.jaring.my> At 10:05 06/12/97 +1200, Kerry Wood wrote: >Hi > > >On 5/12 Paul Barter wrote: > >>Traffic accidents -- now killing half a million people a year worldwide -- >>will soon be the world's third leading cause of death after heart disease and >>strokes, U.S. experts predicted on Tuesday. > > >Does this mean that motor vehicles are already the leading cause of death - >if you include heart disease due to lack of exercise - bacause of always >taking the car? > > > >Kerry Wood >Transport Consultant >Phone/fax + 64 4 801 5549 e-mail kwood@central.co.nz >1 McFarlane St Wellington 6001 New Zealand > > > > Road kill, heart disease, come ON. these are all developed country death causes. Most of the world dies from malnutrition related and similar diseases. These statements MUST be wrong. Of course these people wouldn't need so much food if they could drive around instead of walking :( Tony Barry EValue Engineering S/B Kuala Lumpur From tkpb at barter.pc.my Sun Dec 7 20:43:22 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:43:22 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Road crashes a growing world cause of death Message-ID: Kerry Wood wrote, in response to the article that I forwarded to the list: >>Traffic accidents, now killing half a million people a year worldwide, >>will soon be the world's third leading cause of death after heart disease >>and strokes, U.S. experts predicted on Tuesday. > >Does this mean that motor vehicles are already the leading cause of death - >if you include heart disease due to lack of exercise - bacause of always >taking the car? Tony Barry responded: >Road kill, heart disease, come ON. these are all developed country death >causes. Most of the world dies from malnutrition related and similar >diseases. These statements MUST be wrong. I take your point, Tony.... but I think there may still be cause for concern. Up to a point you are quite right. Road deaths are NOT YET cause-of-death number three. The statement about road deaths being number three was a prediction for the future (the article wasn't specific about which year, sorry). The report said that currently road deaths are number nine cause of death worldwide (and you are right, poverty-related causes of death are right up there at the moment). Presumably the report made certain assumptions about economic change over the next decade or so. I assume they expect many low-income countries to become middle-income countries. AND middle-income countries tend to have high road death rates and increasingly also have high heart disease rates. So Kerry's point is premature but not totally off the mark. Currently, road deaths per head of population are higher in middle-income countries like Malaysia, Korea, Thailand, etc.. (due to high death rate per km along with a middle-level amount of driving) than they are in high-income countries (with LOTS of driving but low death rate per km driven). However it IS true, as you point out, that in very low income countries there is so little motorised driving that high death rates per km do not amount to high death rates per 100,000 people (except perhaps in the big cities where vehicles are concentrated.. eg Delhi?). Here are some figures from various sources. Road deaths per 100,000 USA 1993 15.6 Malaysia 1995 28.5 South Korea 1994 34.8 "low-income countries" ~1990 ~7 "lower-middle income" ~1990 ~11 "upper-middle income" ~1990 ~20 "high-income income" ~1990 ~13 (these estimates for income groups are from a graph in World Bank (1995) "Sustainable Transport: Priorities for Policy Reform" (p. 65 citing IRF data). I know less about the heart disease stroke side of the argument but for example, I believe Malaysia's rate for heart deaths has passed Australia's (please correct me if I am wrong). >Of course these people wouldn't need so much food if they could drive >around instead of walking :( This joking comment hints at the fact that better access and basic mobility would help poor people more than it would harm them. No argument there I think. A number of participants on this list have been involved in trying to enhance access and basic mobility for the poor and disadvantaged people to basic mobility (eg. access to non-motorised vehicles, basic bus services or year-round vehicle access to villages). Unfortunately, big mobility-enhancing projects around the world often benefit elites and fail miserably to address the needs of the abolute poor...... So the point is taken. Best wishes, Paul. A. Rahman Paul BARTER Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) c/o Asia Pacific 2000, PO Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Fax: +603 253 2361, E-mail: ------------------------------------------------- SUSTRAN is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological sustainability; health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life. From ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com Mon Dec 8 03:15:24 1997 From: ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com (Britton EcoPlan) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 13:15:24 -0500 Subject: [sustran] GEF Transport Paper: Message-ID: <199712071315_MC2-2B03-4754@compuserve.com> Dear Friends, May I suggest that Christopher Zegras so-called "very long e-mail comments" are so thoughtful and to the point that they could be somehow incorporated as key background to whatever we all eventually put our names to on this subject. I particularly appreciate the way that, instead of slavishly letting his thoughts be imprisoned and trammeled by the GEF "objectives and criteria", he just takes off from there and fashions from them some things that we should be able to work with quite handily indeed. Let me try that again. To my mind, what CZ is offering us is the GEF as a framework to stimulate on-the-ground local actions within a framework of sustainable development -- as opposed to more argent de poche for the technological long haul (which anyway is going to get wherever it gets not much influenced by this particular spree of taxpayers dollars). I can appreciate the desire to make such an approach work, but is not our last couple of decades of experience with public money being used to leverage technology sufficiently clear that we can now leave that route behind us, once and for all? I mean what a splendid opportunity we have here. And I do hope that we are not going to lose pace on this, because once a bad idea finds its place and gains momentum, stopping it becomes hard work indeed. With all good wishes, Eric Britton _________________________________________________________________ EcoPlan International -- Technology, Economics & Social Systems E-mail: postmaster@the-commons.org World Wide Web: http://www.ecoplan.org Day Phone: 331.4441.6340 (Also ISDN videoconference/groupwork) Day Fax : 331.4441.6341 ISDN Data: 331.4441.6342 Mobile Phone: 336.0737.7798 Postal: EcoPlan International Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara F-75006 Paris, France 24 hour backup Phone/Fax: 331.4326.1323 essage text written by INTERNET:sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org >Christopher Zegras< From ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com Mon Dec 8 03:15:12 1997 From: ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com (Britton EcoPlan) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 13:15:12 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Road crashes a growing world cause of death Message-ID: <199712071315_MC2-2B03-474F@compuserve.com> Dear Friends, Thought that this note which recently came in over the transom might make a useful addition to our exchanges this topic. I have encouraged Dr. Hussain to participate directly in this debate, and am hopeful that John Whitelegg (J.Whitelegg@lancaster.ac.uk) may consider getting out a special edition of Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice on this important topic. Eric Britton ______________________________ -------------Forwarded Message----------------- From: Ahuss666, INTERNET:Ahuss666@aol.com To: [Britton], ecoplan_the_commons Date: 12/5/97 5:50 AM Dear Mr. Britton, I am in the early stages of preparing for the first World Congress on Child Traffic Safety. Ironically, no one on Earth, to my best knowledge, knows the number of children's casualties in road CRASHES (as they are called now in the US). If you kindly remember that among my comments in Vancouver I stated that my conservative estimates indicate that the global figure for road accident fatalities and injuries are at least 750,000 and 25-30 million respectively, and one of the Dutch delegates asked if I agree to be quoted on that figure. The UNDP Human Development Report 1996, for the first time gave a rate for road accident casualties per 100,000 population which when multiplied by the figure of the world population revealed a scary 42 million population. In the same year, WRI using WHO data indicated that the number of road fatalities worldwide in 1993 was 885,000. When these figures are compared with figures released by renowned institutions ranging from 300,000 to 500,000, you realize that global road safety research is still in its infancy stages. In his thick document on the occasion of the UN 50th Anniversary, the UNSG talked about the 17,000 victims of natural disasters in four years. Now, when it comes to the global portion of children casualties, it is everybody's guess. My conservative estimates range between 25-40%. On the other hand CRSI was established as a result of my frustration in the way traffic safety is comprehended in the developed and developing countries. Think of the car toys given to the children when they are 2-3 years old, and how toys become more sophisticated as the child grow up coupled with TV adds on the unlimited number of car makes and models. The kid now is eager and eligible to get his driving license. At that junction we try to teach him to be a safe driver............ We tend to concentrate on cure-oriented solutions for road CRASHES, although a lot is said on prevention. I believe, that current philosophies of traffic safety are not adequate to tackle today's and tomorrow's carnage of road crashes. Let me now put this bit of info before you for your respective thought. The American Lung Association, cited in a Canadian publication, found in a recent study that 120,000 Americans die because of air pollution from road vehicles across the US, and the cost of medical care in that respect was estimated to be about $US 30 billion. This is the case in a country that phased-out lead in gasoline since 1986, and has a relatively accepted levels of other air pollutants in a fair number of states. Is not logical to assume that the death risk imposed on children and adults as a result of air pollution outweigh that of the road CRASHES? Accordingly, we should re-think defining road safety. But when it comes to data and information on traffic safety in developing countries, and specifically in human settlements, we are almost in dark ages. When adding the guessed economic dimension of at least US$100 billion per year, we find that there is certainly something extra ordinary that a problem of this size is not felt by the UN, Governments, or multilateral funding agencies. The year 2000 would hopefully witness the beginning of putting some facts in the right place to got the right solution. My vision, with some optimism, or a sustainable global traffic safety extends to 50-100 years. Finally, I think it is people like yourself and others who should prove to the UN that AGENDA 21 is a good document that could only be implemented by people who are dedicated to the cause, have vision, new technology knowledge and skill: people who can identify, develop, implement, and evaluate sustainable solution programmes. The problem developing countries face, development wise, is that the knowledge's link between those who govern and the governed seem to be deficient or non-existent. If the causes of known problems are brought to the discussion table, life will be much easier and results will be felt. Else, it will be the same old LOOP. Regards. Dr. Ayad M. Hussain Child Road Safety Institute P.O. Box 616 Totowa, NJ 07511, USA From mobility at igc.apc.org Tue Dec 9 00:42:51 1997 From: mobility at igc.apc.org (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 07:42:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [sustran] GEF Message-ID: <2.2.16.19971208113333.1a87bb0c@pop.igc.org> We now, thanks to Tomasz Terlecki of the CEE BAnkwatch Network, have access to the entire GEF Draft Operational Program for Transport. Unfortunately, it is too long to send the entire document. If you would like to receive it directly by email, please let me know and I will forward it direct. Rgds, Walter Hook ________________________________________________________________________________ The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) 115 West 30th Street, Suite 1205 New York, NY 10001 Tel 212-629 8001, Fax 212-629 8033 mobility@igc.apc.org From aldizon at po.pacific.net.sg Tue Dec 9 02:24:56 1997 From: aldizon at po.pacific.net.sg (al r dizon) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 01:24:56 +0800 (SGT) Subject: [sustran] GEF Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19971209012538.11d7c9cc@po.pacific.net.sg> At 07:42 AM 12/8/97 -0800, you wrote: >We now, thanks to Tomasz Terlecki of the CEE BAnkwatch Network, have access >to the entire GEF Draft Operational Program for Transport. Unfortunately, >it is too long to send the entire document. If you would like to receive it >directly by email, please let me know and I will forward it direct. > >Rgds, >Walter Hook > Please let me have the GEF document. Thanks! Al R Dizon From j.whitelegg at lancaster.ac.uk Tue Dec 9 06:12:58 1997 From: j.whitelegg at lancaster.ac.uk (John Whitelegg) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 21:12:58 -0000 Subject: [sustran] GEF Message-ID: <01BD041F.7CD87620@ras2-pptp-2.lancs.ac.uk> ---------- From: al r dizon[SMTP:aldizon@po.pacific.net.sg] Sent: Monday, December 08, 1997 5:24 PM To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Subject: Re: [sustran] GEF Dear Walter Hook, Please let me have the GEF document (by e-mail): j.whitelegg@lancaster.ac.uk many thanks and very best wishes, John Whitelegg At 07:42 AM 12/8/97 -0800, you wrote: >We now, thanks to Tomasz Terlecki of the CEE BAnkwatch Network, have access >to the entire GEF Draft Operational Program for Transport. Unfortunately, >it is too long to send the entire document. If you would like to receive it >directly by email, please let me know and I will forward it direct. > >Rgds, >Walter Hook > Please let me have the GEF document. Thanks! Al R Dizon begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(@P5`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <` M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`0V ! `"`````@`"``$$ MD 8`4 $```$````,`````P``, (````+``\.``````(!_P\!````6P`````` M``"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````'-U``,P`0```!\```!S=7-T``$P`0```"$` M```G"YA<&,N;W)G)P`````"`0LP`0`` M`"0```!33510.E-54U1204XM1$E30U534T!*0T$N05@N05!#+D]21P`#```Y M``````L`0#H!`````@'V#P$````$`````````J%&`02 `0`3````4D4Z(%MS M=7-T!+T!'@!P``$` M```3````4D4Z(%MS=7-T#U,4 MZJ]3< \1T;AP1$535 `````>`!X,`0````4```!33510`````!X`'PP!```` M' ```&HN=VAI=&5L96=G0&QA;F-AYPJ''9L,,'4>9D8#83H?[AYF#((@10= ( 7 9&EZ`B!;8%--5% Z M!T C\T H<&\N"K!C!I!I8X0N;A(`+G-G71^/7R"=!F ","'/(MM-`B!DH&%Y M+"!$!9!E!M 1!) @,#@JP#$Y.0`W(#4Z,C0@4&9-)D\@G51O*(\BVW/0=7-T M<@!P+2/P!/ !,(!S0&IC82YAVG@QH' EL 6P9RQ_)UXX=6)J'J$NGR+;4F4% M-,!;,'5=($=%1G\;2#4*&TP='!H_*M$*P5<'!T >D 7 2&]O:RS9&NQ0;#P` M$? @/? %0)4'@" 1P'8^,'1H/C Y-X)D;S$@!X "," H8&)Y(&4M`, #$"F" M.AKL:BYW:&D>D/$]\&=G0!CA,8 PD 20\S&@);!U:QKL"H4#@4! FS\0`'!K M!" `<&0@/N!NBY@!)"!/?!C:VD@;V8_`T!#144@0D%%0'?, M8701L >Q='<%L#S@_SZT`- K``003L90,3\2*%$V:18`-W-$,+ !@"!/MG $ MD%)@:0(@(Z%0`V"Q"9@J%%2$"`&\0`````P`0$ `````#`!$0```` M`$ `!S" J'OI'02]`4 `"#" J'OI'02]`1X`/0`!````!0```%)%.B ````` *`P`--/TW``"25P2] ` end From tkpb at barter.pc.my Tue Dec 9 06:48:24 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 05:48:24 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] GEF Message-ID: At 07:42 AM 12/8/97 -0800, Al R Dizon wrote: >Please let me have the GEF document. Thanks! > >Al R Dizon Can I suggest that all requests for the GEF document be sent direct to Walter Hook at rather than to the whole list. It could get tedious for us all to get 20 or more such messages. Best wishes, A. Rahman Paul BARTER Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) c/o Asia Pacific 2000, PO Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Fax: +603 253 2361, E-mail: ------------------------------------------------- SUSTRAN is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological sustainability; health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life. From ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com Tue Dec 9 19:21:14 1997 From: ecoplan_the_commons at compuserve.com (Britton EcoPlan) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 05:21:14 -0500 Subject: [sustran] sustran-discuss V1 #115 Message-ID: <199712090521_MC2-2B43-994F@compuserve.com> Walter, IF you send it to me, I can put it on our ftp site for anyone who wishes to download. Can you zip it first? With all good wishes, Eric Britton _________________________________________________________________ EcoPlan International -- Technology, Economics & Social Systems E-mail: postmaster@the-commons.org World Wide Web: http://www.ecoplan.org Day Phone: 331.4441.6340 (Also ISDN videoconference/groupwork) Day Fax : 331.4441.6341 ISDN Data: 331.4441.6342 Mobile Phone: 336.0737.7798 Postal: EcoPlan International Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara F-75006 Paris, France 24 hour backup Phone/Fax: 331.4326.1323 From tkpb at barter.pc.my Wed Dec 10 07:44:08 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 06:44:08 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Economist magazine on road pricing Message-ID: This came from the alt-transp list: The cover story of the current issue of The Economist (http://www.economist.com) is devoted to roads. Not only is the coverage (pretty) good, it bodes well for the future -- this magazine leads other newspapers and magazine, and likely we will see similar stories in other papers. They set the tone with "enormous local damage (in terms of pollution, noise, ugliness, and wasted time)." They acknowledge induced demand "buried under concrete in a vain attempt to tackle congestion" and "the demand for travel is nowhere near to being sated." Their solution: charge for road space. Peter Jacobsen Pasadena, California Here's the text of their leader, but I encourage alt-transp readers to check out several other related articles: Jam today, road pricing tomorrow Road pricing FEW affairs have been more passionate in the 20th century than that between man and his motor car. The car has allowed millions to travel where they will, in comfort and security, at a time of their own choosing?truly, it has revolutionised people?s lives. The car is not just an aspect of modernity, it is a precondition for it. Owning a car remains a goal for millions of poor people in every part of the world?and therefore, ideally, the affair should have continued for decades undisturbed. Unfortunately, it is not to be. For years people have understood that the car was a cherished but dangerous thing. As one British inquiry put it in the 1960s, ?We are nourishing at immense cost a monster of great potential destructiveness.? The truth of that warning is all too apparent in the horribly polluted and congested streets of European, American and Asian cities. Road transport accounts for about a quarter of the man-made gases that may be contributing to global warming, about which hands are being wrung in Kyoto this week. Actually, the role cars play in global warming is not the pressing question. More important, and more certain, is the enormous local damage (in terms of pollution, noise, ugliness and wasted time) caused by traffic congestion?and the great cost of the orthodox solution to that problem, which has been to keep on building roads. Queue or pay Cars in America may be 90% cleaner than they were a generation ago, but this improvement has been largely wiped out by growth. More and more rural areas are being buried under concrete in a vain attempt to tackle congestion on motorways and other major routes. Matters will deteriorate because the demand for travel is nowhere near to being sated. As economies grow, so does traffic. Governments understand this, and know that building roads is unpopular and offers no solution in congested areas. What then are they to do? The underlying problem is clear enough: cheap car-travel has been based on an illusion. Only by making drivers pay for the costs they impose on society can the demand for motoring be brought into line with restricted supply. The choice for drivers is simple: queue or pay. If roads continue to be operated as one of the last relics of a Soviet-style command economy, then the consequence will be worsening traffic jams and eventual Bangkok-style gridlock. If, on the other hand, roads were priced like any other scarce commodity, better use would be made of existing space and the revenues raised could be used to improve public transport. The mere fact of making motorists pay their way would free capacity to such an extent that bus travel would become easier and faster, and subsidies could be reduced. Politicians have long shied away from this approach because it is difficult to persuade voters to pay for something that has long been free. But some governments are starting to accept that there may be no alternative. Charging for ownership rather than use, as most tax systems do, makes little sense. Heavy fixed costs, including vehicle duties, insurance and depreciation, merely encourage drivers to use their cars more because the perceived marginal costs of motoring are so small. The way forward must be to make cars more expensive to use. Higher fuel duties are often suggested as a way of doing this. But increasing the price of petrol and diesel for all motorists is very crude. It makes no sense to penalise a rural motorist driving along empty country roads when the problem lies in cities and on congested motorways. Road pricing, adjusted for place and time, can, by contrast, be fixed precisely to reduce congestion. Motorists driving through city rush-hour traffic would see on their in-car meters that they were being charged peak rates. The same journey made during the early hours of the morning in uncongested streets would attract a much smaller charge or perhaps no charge at all. Improving public transport is another frequently proposed alternative to road pricing. If only the buses, underground systems and railways worked cheaply and efficiently, then motorists would leave their cars at home. All the evidence, sadly, suggests otherwise. One European study found that halving bus fares would reduce car use by less than 1%. Drivers are so wedded to their cars that they will be deterred only by higher motoring costs or regulation. Critics claim that road pricing would merely displace traffic on to side roads, and that it would infringe privacy (because drivers? movements are recorded). New forms of charging provide answers. Technology makes it possible to track vehicles via satellite to make sure that rat-runners do not escape charges. Even without that innovation, if charges merely diffused congestion by spreading traffic-peaks through time, the resulting ?displacement? would be a good thing. Minor roads can meanwhile be protected by regulation. As for privacy, only charge-evaders need have a picture of their licence plate taken as they pass by. Politics, not technology, remains the real barrier to the widespread introduction of charging. Some countries have made a start (see article). In others, politicians are still terrified that their car-owning voters will savage any government that tries to introduce direct measures of restraint. But where pricing has been introduced, as in Scandinavia, it has proved effective and popular. Those who argue that road pricing is unfair because it discriminates against the poor ignore the fact that people too poor to own a vehicle, together with the young and the very old, suffer the ill-effects of congestion without the benefits of personal mobility. Moreover, if the revenues were used to improve public transport, the poor would benefit disproportionately. If road pricing is to be made politically acceptable, both the methods of charging and the use of the revenues must be easily understood and made totally transparent. Borrowing against future streams of charging revenues will allow much-needed improvements in public transport to be brought forward. So long as road pricing is introduced as part of a package of other measures, then it should be possible to persuade drivers that paying is better than being stuck in ever-worsening jams. All that is needed is a commodity that often seems as scarce as space on the roads?political leadership. ? Copyright 1997 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All Rights Reserved From pendakur at unixg.ubc.ca Wed Dec 10 11:46:34 1997 From: pendakur at unixg.ubc.ca (Dr. V. S. Pendakur) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 18:46:34 -0800 Subject: [sustran] GEF Message-ID: pl send it by em, thanks. **************************************************** Dr. V. Setty Pendakur School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2 1-604-822-3394-office, 1-604-263-3576-home 1-604-822-3787-fax Email : pendakur@unixg.ubc.ca *************************************************** ---------- > From: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > Subject: [sustran] GEF > Date: Monday, December 08, 1997 7:42 AM > > We now, thanks to Tomasz Terlecki of the CEE BAnkwatch Network, have access > to the entire GEF Draft Operational Program for Transport. Unfortunately, > it is too long to send the entire document. If you would like to receive it > directly by email, please let me know and I will forward it direct. > > Rgds, > Walter Hook > > ____________________________________________________________________________ ____ > > The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) > 115 West 30th Street, Suite 1205 > New York, NY 10001 > Tel 212-629 8001, Fax 212-629 8033 > mobility@igc.apc.org > From pendakur at unixg.ubc.ca Wed Dec 10 11:45:11 1997 From: pendakur at unixg.ubc.ca (Dr. V. S. Pendakur) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 18:45:11 -0800 Subject: [sustran] GEF Transport Paper: Update Message-ID: Am just back this morning from all my travels. Please dont circulate this to all sustrans people. You may rephrase or use whatever you think makes sense. Glad to note that you are making progress on this. If you wish to make serious progress on this within the WB, you have to get some people with power as well as people with real NMT and Env operational skills to operationally follow up afterwards. You also have to keep the vertical power structure in the information loop as they have to know that they are being watched by constructively diligent people. For example, I think Mike Walton , Director of the poverty alleviation group, Ismail Seregeldin, VP for Env Sust Devt ( for info), Chris Hoban for Rural Roads, Jean Louis Sarbib ( VP for Africa) and others I can name. The contacts you mention within the USA are very relevant and we could meet informally ( during lunch, may be ) between ourselves to establish a direction. Then meet with the WB people. Then we should make our contribution formal, at some point or date. Do you wish me to follow up with some more names? Cheers, Setty. **************************************************** Dr. V. Setty Pendakur School of Community and Regional Planning University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2 1-604-822-3394-office, 1-604-263-3576-home 1-604-822-3787-fax Email : pendakur@unixg.ubc.ca *************************************************** ---------- > From: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy > To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org > Cc: tterlecki@zgpke.most.org.pl; ferenc@mkk.zpok.hu; james.barnes@wanadoo.fr; tande@knooppunt.be; Herman.Chris@epamail.epa.gov > Subject: [sustran] GEF Transport Paper: Update > Date: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 2:17 PM > > An update on the GEF Transport paper "Draft Operational Program No. 11: > Promoting Sustainable Transport Infrastructure." > > I have spoken to Mr. Ken King, of the GEF Secretariat, who is one of the > senior people responsible for the redrafting of this document, which is to > outline what the GEF will fund in the transport sector. > > He explained that the Draft Operational Program was pulled together by Mr. > Ahuja, and it was discussed informally at a luncheon in D.C. and was > circulated among some technical people, but that it has not even gone to the > GEF Council and it is not yet, despite proclamations to the contrary, on the > World Wide Web. > > He expects that the process of developing the final recommentations will > take eleven months, (until next November), but rapid progress will be made > in January - March of next year, so there is still plenty of time for us to > make some input, and to establish a formal review procedure. His view was > that the document was still too preliminary for highly detailed comments on > the draft to be of much use. He also stressed that in terms of what the GEF > ultimately does, it will have to fit closely within the confines of overall > GEF objectives and criteria, and that these criteria have something to do > with the currently limited nature of the draft's recommendations. We need > to familiarize ourselves as much as possible with the current criteria. (we > have old documents on this which we will reference, but if anyone has new > info, please pass it on) > > Proposed Follow Up: > > Brian Williams will be in New York next week and is in possession of the > draft document. I suggest I draft a letter under Brian's unofficial > supervision responding to their draft in the constructive manner outlined > above, circulate it for further comment among those interested, put specific > response time-limits for comment, and draft a joint final document with as > many signators as possible. The letter should be constructive and > non-hostile, as they have been very willing to be cooperative and > consultative in response to my inquiries, (my frustration on this score was > the result of many of them being in Kyoto-fair enough) and should focus on > the technical merits of what they are proposing to the greatest extent > possible. It should also speak generally and not only about the draft > letter which is highly provisional at this time, and indicate where we'd > like to see it go. Our draft will have long quotes from the original so > that those of you without the original document (since its not on the WEB, I > guess that's everyone except Brian and Tomas of CEEC bankwatch-remarkable > since U.S. govt cant even get hold of it) will have a good idea as to the > flavor of the document. > > Further, Ken King suggested to me that several of us concerned about the > redrafting of this document could meet and discuss its broad outlines. I > suggested the week of January 12 - January 16th in Washington, as there will > be a significant number of us in Washington at that time for the > Transportation Research Board's annual meeting. We will then discuss the > issues raised in the letter at that time, and use the occassion to set up > some sort of broader consultative process, encouraging them to send their > drafts to the sustran discuss list, to ceec bankwatch, etc. > > I suggest that we try and encourage the following people to attend the > meeting: Tommy Seamans of the U.S. Department of Treasury (I will call him: > he is responsible for GEF and supervises the U.S. govt position regarding > all GEF matters; his presence or Mark Rentchler will force the Bank to take > us seriously and set up a broader consultative process); EDF's Michael > Replogle or Bruce Rich, IIEC's Chris Zegras or Julia Philpott or whoever > else is available from there, ITDP (me), perhaps Larry Williams of Sierra > Club, Dr. Setty Pendakur (ITDP's President), and whoever else is interested > that is likely to be in Washington at that time, please let me know. It > should not be too many people, but should also be sufficient numbers that we > are taken seriously. We will also encourage that John Flora and Paul > Guitink and a couple others from inside the Bank attend. The Bank will > probably send a half dozen people, but we will confirm about who will attend > after they tell me (sometime after 12/17 when their staff will have returned > from Kyoto). > > After that meeting, we will send a summary of the meeting to the lists and > discuss where to go from there. > > I was also told by Ms. Noreen Beg of the World Bank's GEF staff that the > World Bank was also drafting its own proposed guidelines as to how the World > Bank's transport lending can help realize GEF objectives. This document is > being sent to me, and the same process could be used to comment > simultaneously on this draft, which may also be important. > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ ____ > > The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) > 115 West 30th Street, Suite 1205 > New York, NY 10001 > Tel 212-629 8001, Fax 212-629 8033 > mobility@igc.apc.org > From Gihon.Jordan at phila.gov Mon Dec 15 22:40:40 1997 From: Gihon.Jordan at phila.gov (Gihon.Jordan@phila.gov) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:40:40 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Minimum and maximum lane widths for arteria Message-ID: <00036790.@phila.gov> ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re[2]: [sustran] Minimum and maximum lane widths for arteria Author: Charles Denny at ~MSCP01 Date: 12/3/97 1:49 PM Gihon did you resopnd to the question about our City using 3m(10') lanes on major arterials (Broad St.)? ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: [sustran] Minimum and maximum lane widths for arterials Author: Gihon Jordan at ~MSCP01 Date: 12/3/97 9:40 AM The City of Philadlephia uses 10 foot wide lanes on arterials. Broad Street has an ADT of 50,000 and is 10-10-10-9-10-10-10 feet wide lanes with center turn lanes. There are peak hour no-parking clearences of the curb lanes in the direction of peak traffic. We have many one-way 26 feet wide streets that have parking on one curb and are used two lanes and are signalized corridors. We have one-way, 30,000 ADT, 44 feet wide arterials that stripped 7-10-10-10-7. Some of the lanes may actually be narrower in spots. These 44 feet streets do have a crash problem and are not friendly to drive or bicycle. Hope this is useful. Gihon There are some bicycle design criteria here. Eric ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:56:24 +0800 (MYT) From: Paul Barter Reply-To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org To: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org Cc: Andre Pettinga Subject: Re: [sustran] Minimum and maximum lane widths for arterials in urban areas Dear Rajeev Saraf >For Delhi, while redesigning the road cross section to accomodate bicycle >tracks, we had proposed 3.0m wide lanes. But there was a strong >resistance for few people, who said that we could not have lanes in >urban areas of width less than 3.5m. >I would like to if lanes of 3.0m have been implemented anywhere and what >impact does it have on safety, speed and capacity? How have the codes in >various countries dealt with lane widths? Any repsonse is welcome. >thanks. > I believe you are asking about the width of the traffic lanes not the bicycle lanes/tracks. I am not an engineer, so I can't answer you in great detail. But I think that many cities around the world do accept urban traffic lanes of less than 3.5 metres. I have just had a look at CROW Record 10, "Sign up for the bike: Design manual for a cycle-friendly infrastructure" (Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering - The Netherlands). [available from C.R.O.W., P.O. Box 37, NL-6710 BA EDE, The Netherlands. Tel. +31 8380 20410, Fax: +31 8380 21112]. This study gives much detail on the pragmatic Dutch approach to designing for bicycles. I notice a number of examples in this report which show traffic lanes of 3.0 metres. But I suspect that these are in rather low-speed environments (in old parts of cities). I am cc'ing this to Andre Pettinga, who was involved in writing the CROW Record 10. Perhaps he can provide the technical answer that you require. It should also be remembered that road engineering standards should be used as guidelines and not as divine law. Accepting lane widths slightly below "standard" may well cause some problems. BUT if you can show that there are greater safety and efficiency benefits of the new road design then we should not let the standards stop us from at least having a trial of the improvement. Best wishes, A. Rahman Paul BARTER Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific (SUSTRAN) c/o Asia Pacific 2000, PO Box 12544, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Fax: +603 253 2361, E-mail: ------------------------------------------------- SUSTRAN is dedicated to promoting transport policies and investments which foster accessibility for all; social equity; ecological sustainability; health and safety; public participation; and high quality of life. From tkpb at barter.pc.my Wed Dec 17 22:40:57 1997 From: tkpb at barter.pc.my (Paul Barter) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 21:40:57 +0800 (MYT) Subject: [sustran] Road crashes a growing world cause of death Message-ID: Here is a clarification and proper source for the earlier report on road crashes as a growing world cause of death. Again this is reposted from the alt-transp list. ------------------------------------- From: litman@IslandNet.com (Todd Litman) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:25:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: alt-transp Road crashes as an international health problem Forwarded from Ralph Hirsh: >National Public Radio did a report on this subject yesterday morning which I >heard and which may have been the one Todd Litman heard. The data in that >NPR report were from the Global Burden of Disease and Injury (GBD) study >currently being carried out by the Harvard School of Public Health and the >World Health Organization (WHO), with more than 100 collaborators around the >world. Christopher J.L. Murray directs the project at Harvard, and Alan D. >Lopez is one of his coauthors. > ... irrelevant stuff snipped.... > >The Harvard/WHO study identified the 15 most important diseases or types of >injury, in terms of "disease burden" as measured in Disability-Adjusted Life >Years (DALYs), a unit of measurement which combines the impact of both death >and disability. (The DALY is defined as one lost year of healthy life.) It >ranked these top 15 diseases and injuries for the year 1990 and projected >the rankings, in what the study called its Baseline Scenario, to the year 2020. > >One alarming finding, which the press picked up, is that road traffic >accidents, ranked 9th in terms of "disease burden" (DALYs) in the year 1990, >were projected to rise to 3rd place by the year 2020. > >Looking at deaths, the study found that among the ten leading causes of >death in 1990 road traffic accidents were number 8 in developed regions and >number 10 in developing regions. Worldwide it found that, among adults aged >15-44, road traffic accidents were the leading cause of death for men and >the fifth most important for women. The study points out that "The high toll >of road traffic accidents in developing regions has received relatively >little attention from public health specialists in the past." > >A summary of the full study is available on a Web site of the Harvard School >of Public Health, and may be downloaded in Adobe Acrobat format, at > >http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/organizations/bdu/summary.html > >Figure 2, showing the projected change in the rank of traffic accidents >between 1990 and 2020, is in the summary's first section (called >introduction). The definition of DALY is in the second section (identified >as part 1). > >Ralph B. Hirsch, Secretary General >International Federation of Pedestrians (FIP / IFP) >3500 Race Street >Philadelphia PA 19104-4925 >USA >telephone/fax +1.215.386.1270 >e-mail From wcox at publicpurpose.com Wed Dec 31 00:50:54 1997 From: wcox at publicpurpose.com (Wendell Cox ) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 09:50:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: [sustran] Los Angeles Air Pollution at 50 Year Low Message-ID: <199712301550.JAA20873@mail1.i1.net> See San Francisco Chronicle article at.... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/chronicle/article.cgi?file=MN17544.DTL&directo ry=/chronicle/archive/1997/12/30 Happy New Year, Wendell Cox WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY International Public Policy, Economics, Labour, Transport & Strategic Planning The Public Purpose: Internet Public Policy Journal http://www.publicpurpose.com Voice +1 618 632 8507; Fax +1 618 632 8538 P.O. Box 841- Belleville, Illinois 62222 USA "To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary."