[sustran] Re: sustran-discuss V1 #545

[SUSTRAN Resource Centre]

Dear Prema and Britto,

You sent a message to sustran-discuss today but there was no message from
you... just a copy of the recent digest message that you had received.  

I think perhaps you meant to do something else... perhaps change your
subscription?? Is there anything I can do to help?

Best wishes,

Paul.



At 12:57 22/01/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: sustran-discuss <owner-sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
>To: <sustran-discuss-digest at jca.apc.org>
>Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 12:00 PM
>Subject: sustran-discuss V1 #545
>
>
>> * To leave, send the message UNSUBSCRIBE sustran-discuss-digest
>> * to majordomo at mail.jca.ax.apc.org
>>
>> sustran-discuss        Friday, January 21 2000        Volume 01 : Number
>545
>>
>>
>>
>> In this issue:
>>
>>     [sustran] Air Pollution - Delhi, Etc.
>>     [sustran] Re: Air Pollution - Delhi, Etc.
>>     [sustran] Re: Air Pollution - Delhi, Etc.
>>     [sustran] car free day in Manila? Dream on
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:30:57 -0600
>> From: "Wendell Cox" <wcox at publicpurpose.com>
>> Subject: [sustran] Air Pollution - Delhi, Etc.
>>
>> Within the last week there has been some discussion of the level of air
>> pollution in Delhi. The following chart is republished from the London
>Times
>> 2000-01-17, with comparative evaluations of air pollution in urban areas
>> over 10m --- Delhi ranks fourth, with cleaner air only in Mumbai, New York
>> and London, according to this source. The rankings in this chart do not
>> reflect my experience, or what I hear. Does anyone know what is going on.
>>
>> http://www.publicpurpose.com/who-arip.gif
>>
>> Chart was in an article that I found searching the site, so I cannot give
>a
>> url... Headline was "Traffic Fumes do not Harm London's Health."
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Wendell Cox
>>
>> - --
>> WENDELL COX CONSULTANCY: International Public Policy, Economics, Labor,
>> Transport & Strategic Planning
>>
>> THE PUBLIC PURPOSE: Internet Public Policy Resource:
>> http://www.publicpurpose.com
>>      Transport Policy Discussion Group:
>> http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-group.htm
>>
>> DEMOGRAPHIA: http://www.demographia.com
>>      Urban Policy Discussion Group:
>http://www.demographia.com/db-group.htm
>>
>> Telephone +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."
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 12:55:43 +0800
>> From: SUSTRAN Resource Centre <sustran at po.jaring.my>
>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Air Pollution - Delhi, Etc.
>>
>> Dear Wendell,
>>
>> I am puzzled too by the graph on air pollution in cities that you
>> mentioned.  The graph gives its source as the Atmospheric Research and
>> Information Centre. Here are their contact details. I am also cc'ing this
>> message to them.
>>
>> Sue Hare / Joe Buchdahl - Coordinators
>> Atmospheric Research and Information Centre
>> Dept. of Environmental & Geographical Sciences
>> Manchester Metropolitan University
>> Chester Street
>> Manchester M1 5GD
>> Tel: 0161 247 1590/3, Fax: 0161 247 6332
>> E-mail: aric at mmu.ac.uk
>> Internet: http://www.doc.mmu.ac.uk/aric/arichome.html
>>
>> At 15:30 19/01/00 -0600, you wrote:
>> >
>> >Within the last week there has been some discussion of the level of air
>> >pollution in Delhi. The following chart is republished from the London
>Times
>> >2000-01-17, with comparative evaluations of air pollution in urban areas
>> >over 10m --- Delhi ranks fourth, with cleaner air only in Mumbai, New
>York
>> >and London, according to this source. The rankings in this chart do not
>> >reflect my experience, or what I hear. Does anyone know what is going on.
>> >
>> >http://www.publicpurpose.com/who-arip.gif
>> >
>> >Chart was in an article that I found searching the site, so I cannot give
>a
>> >url... Headline was "Traffic Fumes do not Harm London's Health."
>> >
>> >Best regards,
>> >Wendell Cox
>>
>> PLEASE NOTE NEW 8 DIGIT TELEPHONE/FAX NUMBER
>>
>> A. Rahman Paul BARTER
>> Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia
>> and the Pacific (the SUSTRAN Network)
>> P.O. Box 11501,  Kuala Lumpur 50748, Malaysia.
>> TEL/FAX: +60 3 2274 2590
>> E-mail: sustran at po.jaring.my
>> SUSTRAN:  http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2853/
>>
>> The SUSTRAN Network promotes and popularises
>> people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport
>> with a focus on Asia and the Pacific.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:37:31 +0100
>> From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org
>> Subject: [sustran] Re: Air Pollution - Delhi, Etc.
>>
>> Headline was "Traffic Fumes do not Harm London's Health."
>>
>> That's really terrific. What a thoughtful and competent conclusion on the
>> part of the media.  Just cause they see London up there as the "best
>> performer" on the world list of eco-horrors, they feel safe to conclude
>that
>> there's no problem.  And so it ever goes.
>>
>> I detest conspiracy theories (as much as anything else because they put
>you
>> in such awful company), but in this case one is justified in wondering
>> if....
>>
>> Of course there is a conspiracy.  And of course it is one of banality and
>> complacency, in good part made possible because the people who should know
>> better (that's you and me my friends) simply do not seem to know how to
>grab
>> and hold the stage.  By being "intellectually responsible", by being
>> "specialized", by agreeing to do yet more studies (which either implicitly
>> accept the inertial premises of an environmentally reactionary political
>> establishment or, if we don't, by not making too much of a fuss about it),
>> by conferring and incessantly talking to each other all the time about
>> matters of common professional interest .... Hey, there are only 24 hours
>in
>> the day, and if we spend all our time doing this, no wonder that "Traffic
>> Fumes do not Harm London's Health."
>>
>> Your servant is of course as guilty as the rest.  One more little white
>> mouse nibbling harmlessly in his corner of the warm cage.
>>
>>
>> Here's a piece of more hopeful news.
>>
>> Peter Wiederkehr of the OECD's EST (Environmentally Sustainable
>> Transportation) program mentioned to me en passant yesterday that their
>> global analysis of pollution factors has revealed something quite
>> surprising.  Namely that it would not take an awful lot of rejiggling of
>the
>> transport system, at least within the OECD region, in order to achieve
>some
>> MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS in air quality. This is great news if true. As I
>> understand it, he is not talking about Factor of Ten (or whatever) stuff,
>> but rather has concluded that if we can only find a way to package the
>> solution set (which in turn consists of a number of very specific, low
>cost,
>> trend-busting "sustainability triggers"), it is something that we should
>be
>> able to sell to the politicians (that is those who are not yet in jail or
>> under investigation) and the public.
>>
>> I am going to ask him to put some of this in our forum here (for which I
>am
>> ever grateful to good Paul) for your information and consideration.  And
>> hopefully your ideas and feedback, both to Peter and to the rest of us.
>>
>> Eric Britton
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 22:21:23 +0800
>> From: "Heckler" <heckler at quickweb.com.ph>
>> Subject: [sustran] car free day in Manila? Dream on
>>
>> For those of you who remember the letter that the Philippine NGO
>Sustainable
>> Transport Network sent to Metro Manila Development Authority Chairman
>> Jejomar Binay endorsing his proposal for a carfree day in Metro Manila,
>> hereunder is his verbatim reply (and uncommented as well).
>>
>> Dear Mr. Fernan:
>>
>> Thank you so much for your very encouraging letter of October 18, 1999. It
>> was such a welcome respite from the barrage of criticism we received, ever
>> since the plan to hold car-less days in Metro Manila saw print in several
>> newspapers.
>>
>> I do not want to dampen your enthusiasm, but lest you be led to
>prematurely
>> entertain expectations on the proximity of the plan's implementation, I
>> would like to inform you that it is still under study.
>>
>> Allow me just the same to clarify that this was not primarily intended as
>a
>> traffic management scheme. It was born out of our concern for the
>> improvemenet of Metro Manila's air shed. As you and your group may well
>> know, Metro Manila, with a vehicle density of 435 vehicles per kilometer
>of
>> road is already the 9th most polluted metropolis among the 40 best cities
>in
>> Asia and 70 percent of its air pollutants is accounted to vehicular
>> emissions.
>>
>> Admittedly, it will take sometime before the plan can be implemented as
>this
>> is dependent on the existence of an efficient mass transport system. And
>if
>> it is any positive sign, this requirement has already been started to be
>put
>> in place by the government.
>>
>> Again, thank you very much and we look forward to your continued support.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>>
>> Jejomar C. Binay
>> Chairman
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of sustran-discuss V1 #545
>> ******************************
>>
>>
>
>
>