From whook at itdp.org Thu Apr 1 01:42:16 2004 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:42:16 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: sign on: urge better emissions controls in WB handbook References: <000001c415e9$dc5863c0$6901a8c0@Lisa> Message-ID: <00ed01c4173f$2074cac0$6801a8c0@WALTER> dear michael, this should work. http://www.cleanairnet.org/cai/1403/article-56396.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Peterson To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:59 PM Subject: [sustran] sign on: urge better emissions controls in WB handbook Dear all, As many of you know, the World Bank has been developing a draft handbook to provide guidance to countries dealing with vehicle-related pollution problems. (available at http://www.cleanairnet.org/cai/1403/article-56396.html) While the handbook has several good recommendations relating to traffic demand management, modal shift, bus priority and elimination of leaded gasoline, it misses the mark on the key issue of fuel and vehicle standards. Please join the NRDC, ITDP and other groups in urging the World Bank to revise this flawed document to include more appropriate recommendations for fuel and vehicle standards. The sign-on letter, to Bank President James D. Wolfensohn and the Board of Directors, is available at www.itdp.org/read/wbhandbooksignon.doc and pasted in this email below. As it stands, the draft Handbook aids those who wish to derail or delay efforts to improve fuel equality and reduce emissions. It overemphasizes obstacles to implementing improved standards while providing little guidance to government ready to reduce their mobile source emissions. To sign on, please email or call me at lpeterson@itdp.org or 212-629-8001 by Wednesday, April 7. Best, Lisa Peterson Communications Director Institute for Transportation and Development Policy Subscribe to Sustainable Transport: www.itdp.org 115 West 30th Street, Suite 1205 New York, NY 10001 Ph: 212-629-8001 Fax: 212-629-8033 e-mail: lpeterson@itdp.org April 2004 James D. Wolfensohn President World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 Cc: World Bank Board of Directors Re: Urban Air Pollution: Policy Framework for Mobile Sources Dear Mr. Wolfensohn: Our organizations, representing citizens from dozens of countries around the world, are writing to express our strong reservations about the World Bank's draft document, "Urban Air Pollution: Policy Framework for Mobile Sources" (the "Handbook"). At the outset, we note that the World Bank staff responsible for preparing the "Handbook" have recognized the importance of soliciting comments from stakeholders at various forums both in Washington D.C. and around the world. We also appreciate that the Handbook highlights the important role that traffic demand management, modal shift, and bus priority measures can play in mitigating air pollution from mobile sources. We also agree with the World Bank that eliminating leaded gasoline should be the first step to reduce the pollution-based public health impacts of the world's motor vehicles. Since 1994, more than fifty nations have banned leaded gasoline, representing more than 85 percent of the world's gasoline consumption. We also agree that a comprehensive approach to resolving urban air pollution problems is necessary. However, we ultimately feel that a key concern expressed by the vast majority of the handbook's critics is still not reflected in the most recent draft of the Handbook. This draft, by overemphasizing the uncertainties, hurdles and costs of improving fuel and vehicle standards, aids those policy makers seeking to delay or derail significant improvements in these standards. Meanwhile, the document offers limited support to those decision-makers already committed to implementing these improvements or considering fuel or vehicle standards for the first time. We urge you to delay the finalization of this report until our concerns have been addressed adequately. We would like to meet with you and your staff to discuss these concerns in greater depth. As you know, air pollution is a growing public health concern in many developing countries. This concern is heightened in the world's growing mega-cities, which are highly likely to face even worse air pollution and related public health impacts in the future, given current trends in population growth, urbanization, vehicle ownership and traffic congestion. Thus, we appreciate the need for a comprehensive policy framework to reduce vehicle pollution around the world. Numerous studies have documented the links between vehicle pollution and a wide range of health impacts. In many countries that are increasingly relying on diesel vehicles, millions of people suffer from unnecessary asthma attacks, cancer, heart and lung disease, and even premature deaths that have been linked with diesel particulate soot pollution. The World Health Organization has recently estimated that outdoor air pollution caused by vehicles and other sources is responsible for almost 800,000 premature deaths each year, with most of those deaths occurring in developing countries. In countries that still use leaded gasoline, children continue to face the risk of mental retardation, impaired growth and, at high doses, even death. Even where unleaded gasoline is used, vehicle emissions are contributing to an emerging ozone problem in many nations, which leads to impaired lung function and significant forest, agricultural and other environmental damage. Unfortunately, we fear that the World Bank's draft Handbook fails to provide necessary leadership and guidance to those cities and countries that grappling with vehicle-related pollution problems. Indeed, we believe that this draft document may undermine ongoing efforts in countries that are already taking meaningful, cost-effective steps to reduce sulfur levels in diesel and gasoline fuels and implement more stringent emission standards that require catalytic converters and/or other emission control equipment. Moreover, we are deeply troubled that this report could delay crucial first steps in nations that have not begun to act. A growing number of policy makers recognize that a comprehensive approach to reducing vehicle emissions must include sulfur reductions and more stringent emission standards that require catalysts and/or other effective pollution controls. Indeed, most of the world's people live in developing countries that are reducing sulfur levels below or more quickly than the standards and timetables recommended in the World Bank's first draft Handbook, including China, India, Thailand, Brazil, Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, Chile, and South Africa. Some of these nations are on a pathway towards ultra-low sulfur levels and aggressive European or American emission standards. Throughout Africa, the Middle East and other regions, a debate about future sulfur and emission standards is actively beginning. Rather than assisting these efforts, the current draft of the World Bank's Handbook aids those who wish to derail or delay these efforts, by overemphasizing uncertainties, hurdles and costs, while underemphasizing options to reduce those uncertainties, hurdles and costs, as well as the significant health and environmental benefits of lower sulfur levels and cleaner vehicles. Reducing sulfur from diesel and gasoline fuels enables air quality and public health improvements in two important ways. First, when high-sulfur fuels are used, sulfur is emitted as sulfur dioxide and sulfate particulate matter, each of which has significant health and environmental impacts. Second, low-sulfur fuels can enable catalyst and other emission control technologies on existing and new vehicles. At reduced sulfur levels, all existing vehicles operate more cleanly and some catalyst technologies are available to reduce a wide range of emissions. At ultra-low sulfur levels, catalyst and filtering technologies are available that can reduce almost all smog-forming gases and diesel particulate soot in many instances. Stated simply, just as eliminating lead in gasoline enables the use of catalytic converters to dramatically reduce a wide range of vehicle pollutants, reducing sulfur levels in diesel and gasoline fuels enables catalysts and other emission control systems that can dramatically reduce the wide range of vehicle pollutants. To summarize, over the past few years, policy makers representing the majority of the world's citizens have moved beyond the premises and recommendations of the draft Handbook. They have concluded that sulfur levels in diesel and gasoline fuels need to be reduced, and that the long-term goal of ultra-low sulfur levels and advanced emissions controls is the right one. Their conclusions are critical steps on path to a cleaner, more sustainable transportation future. In that context, the World Bank's draft document represents a step backward, and a potential tool for those who wish to derail or delay this global clean-up of vehicle fuels and emissions. We strongly urge you to withhold the finalization of the Policy Framework for Mobile Sources until we have had a chance to meet, and until the document reflects our concerns. Very truly yours, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040331/8d7fd292/attachment-0001.html From dguruswamy at hotmail.com Thu Apr 1 03:04:47 2004 From: dguruswamy at hotmail.com (Dharm Guruswamy) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:04:47 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Clean, safe and speedy ... so why has the Busway worsened trafic jams Message-ID: A nice article about the pitfalls of planning a system in Jakarta: Capital letters ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Clean, safe and speedy ... so why has the Busway worsened traffic jams? John Aglionby in Jakarta Saturday March 27, 2004 The Guardian You either love or loathe Jakarta's new Busway. You're either applauding the smart, air-conditioned yellowy-orange buses scything through the snarled city-centre traffic in specially created lanes, or cursing them. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground. Let me state at this point that I'm an emotionally involved. I am a fan of the scheme. Who wouldn't back a plan to get people out of their cars and on to public buses that offer a clean, safe, cool and speedy alternative? Who couldn't support a scheme that cuts by more than half the rush-hour journey time from one end of the city to the other? (When isn't it rush hour in Jakarta?) Whenever I've used the Busway, I've never had to wait more than a couple of minutes for a bus, it has been extremely efficient and everyone on board gets a thrill whizzing past the stationary traffic. When put like that, Governor Sutiyoso's Busway seems a no-brainer, particularly at the bargain price of ?10m and 18p a ride. The snag, though, is that the scheme hasn't got Jakartans out of their cars. Mr Sutiyoso decided something had to be done about the congestion along the city's main north-south artery, which is divided into five lanes in each direction, two of which are already meant for buses and slower vehicles. Fair enough. But after several trips to Bogot?, Columbia, which has allegedly won the war against congestion, he decided to take the fast lane of the fast section for his Busway, when there was a perfectly good lane - the slow lane of the slow section - crying out to be used. He painted it red and blocked it off with concrete slabs to prevent Jakartan motorists from sneaking down it - although that did not stop the vice president from using it on one occasion, to great public consternation. Then came the problem of how to get people to the buses, across the other lanes of traffic. Mr Sutiyoso solved that one by cannibalising the existing pedestrian bridges and hacking down a few trees along the central reservation for the bus stops. Initially the plan was to ban other buses from the route, so people wanting to take a bus would have to ride the Busway and there would still be four lanes for the selfish people who didn't want to avail themselves of public transport. But the ban was never put into effect. So the scene is now that there are still the smoke-belching, mostly unair-conditioned, body-bashed buses blocking the slow lanes. They're laden with passengers because they charge less than half the price of the sleek, often almost-empty Busway buses. Paying an extra 9p to cut one's journey time is not an option for many of the capital's residents. No one has cracked the problem of how to get people to the Busway. The much-hyped feeder services remain a twinkle in Mr Sutiyoso's eye and there is no extra parking provided at either end for commuters to park and ride. So the result is a traffic-beating system for the tiny minority that live close enough to the Busway to make use of it. And as for the rest, they have to allow additional time to get anywhere, as the traffic is undoubtedly much, much worse than it was before. Perhaps Mr Sutiyoso should give London's mayor, Ken Livingstone, a call. Guardian Unlimited ? Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040331/fb5291e7/attachment.html From ccordero at amauta.rcp.net.pe Sat Apr 3 01:06:04 2004 From: ccordero at amauta.rcp.net.pe (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Carlos_Cordero_Vel=E1squez?=) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 11:06:04 -0500 Subject: [sustran] abril a escala humana Message-ID: <005c01c418cc$9681cae0$e3b501c8@pentiumiii> CICLORED El bolet?n del transporte a escala humana abril - mayo, 04 El reino cercano En un mundo de paralelos infinitos, la calle que bordea el malec?n y dota a la noche de un sabor luminoso es seguida por la avenida Pedro de Osma, resguardada por inmensos ficus y a cuyo pie un museo de arquitectura republicana y contenido colonial opera como vestigio de una ciudad desaparecida. El flanco siguiente da inicio a las callecitas con nombre de batalla olvidada, plet?ricas de peque?os negocios, de gentes que han hecho de sus casas talleres medievales, burgo donde se vive y se vende, donde se bebe y se saluda al borde las puertas. Donde todos saben a todos. Ese es el reino de lo cercano, el sitio al que le conoces cada hueco y tambi?n la ruta cotidiana y propicia para que la bici adquiera bajo el sol cierto tono de balance que sacude el sopor del verano. Entre esas calles me pierdo algunas ma?anas para despedir el hambre y solicitar de cuando en vez a los artesanos un poco de maquillaje de casa, algo de mantenimiento rutinario para que el agua fluya, la electricidad alumbre y las paredes no pierdan color. Esa es tambi?n el ?rea descrita por la municipalidad como "zona de transito restringido" este domingo para la reuni?n de gobernadores del BID, para la ceremonia en el museo de la avenida y su recurrente seguridad inventada: "lleve su documento de identidad" dice la esquela municipal repartida por todas las casas y entre l?neas queda claro que la avenida ser? una vez m?s invadida por las camionetas policiales y los autos lujosos; montados sobre las veredas, maltratando los retiros, estorbando el paso ciudadano, por los mismos que salen despu?s en la televisi?n a exigir orden urbano, mientras cada una de sus reuniones exige que se cierren las calles para que todo transcurra en ese orden inventado a expensas del resto, en esa vuelta de tuerca que refleja la realidad. Pero hoy todav?a es viernes, la ma?ana pas? muy r?pido y no hubo tiempo de poner algo en la refrigeradora, por eso a contramano de la habitual visita ma?anera me aventuro a la noche, a recorrer las tiendas que no han cerrado todav?a y hola para los dependientes, cansados del largo d?a, cerrando sus puertas y rejas, arreglando cuentas y balances, empezando a despercudirse de otra semana. A primera vista parece un activo masivo de clausura pero a segunda, un acto de transici?n en el d?a y su continuidad. Con el apuro de la circunstancia cargas un par de bolsas que suman al equilibrio habitual del tim?n y el pedal y empiezas la vuelta camino al malec?n, mientras la chiquilla que atiende en las ma?anas se quita el delantal, empieza a llenarse la cara de polvos mientras los otros apilan cajas y barren el establecimiento. En la calle un novio misterioso ronda sin cesar la bodeguita de la esquina, los viejitos se arremolinan alrededor del bar y el partido de f?tbol repetido. El humo de los anticuchos impregna el aire y convoca a los viandantes. M?s all? la se?ora Susana, gobernanta de los almuerzos y la paila de los menestrales y jubilados del barrio, se alista para su reuni?n de cong?neres y tres puertas despu?s C?sar, el carpintero oficial, rodeado por una alfombra de aserr?n, reemplaza el form?n por unas cervezas dispuestas y heladas. Es el mismo tiempo de los vigilantes que cambian de turno como cambia el barrio de funci?n, como cambia la gente y su hora; cada uno en su telenovela, su fiesta particular, mezclados con la necesidad de que la calle siga siendo de todos aunque todos por un rato de viernes no sean los mismos. Cruzo la avenida, suena una sirena y el mar parece estar m?s lejos que nunca. &&&--- Persecuci?n implacable En la De Diego fiebra la fiesta patronal de nalgas. Rotundas en sus pantis super-look, imponentes en perfil de falda tubo, insurgentes bajo el fascismo de la faja, abismales, ol?mpicas, nucleares, surcan las aceras riopedrenses como invencibles aeronaves nacionales. Entre el culipandeo, m?s intenso que un arrebato colombiano, m?s perseverante que Somoza, el Tipo rastrea a la Tipa. Fiel como una procesi?n de semana santa con su rosario de qu? buena est?s, mamichul?n, qu? bien te ves, qu? ricos te quedan esos pantaloncitos, qu? chula est? esa hembrota, men , que canto e sil?n, tanta carne y yo comiendo hueso... La verdad es que la Tipa est? buena. Se le transparenta el brassiere. Se le marca el Triangulo de las Bermudas a cada temblequeo de taco fino. Pero la verdad es que el tipo transar?a hasta por un palo de mapo disfrazado de pelotero. Adiossss preciosa, se desinfla el tipo en sensuales sibilancias, arrimando peligrosamente el hocico a los technicolores rizos de la perseguida. La cual acelera autom?tica y, con un remeneo de nalgas en high, pone moment?neamente a salvo su virtud. | Pero el salsero solitario vuelve al pernil, soneando sin tregua: qu? chasis, negra, qu? masetera est?s, qu? materia prima, qu? tronco e jeva, qu? zocos, mama, qui?n fuera lluvia pa caelte encima. Dos d?as b?blicos dura el asedio. Dos d?as de cabecidura persecuci?n y enconcorante cantaleta. Dos luengos d?as de qu? chuler?a, trigue?a, si te mango te hago le?a, qu? bestia esa hembra, sea mi vida, por ti soy capaz hasta de trabajal, pa qui?n te estar?s guardando en nevera, abusadora. Al tercer d?a, frente por frente a Almacenes Pitusa y al toque de sofrito de mediod?a, la v?ctima coge impulso, gira espectacular sobre sus precarios tacones y: encestaaaaaaaaaa: Vamos? (fragmento de Letra para Salsa y Tres Soneos por Encargo. Ana Lidia Vega. en Apalabramiento Ediciones del Norte, 1983) &&& --- Ensayos sobre la gobernabilidad (1) El congresista de Unidad Nacional Jos? Le?n Luna G?lvez atropell?, esta ma?ana, a un oficial de la Polic?a Nacional, cuando ?ste intentaba detener la camioneta particular en la que se trasladaba. El parlamentario golpe? al t?cnico Walter Ruiz con una camioneta Lad Cruiser Toyota de placa PIS-829, luego de que se interviniera al veh?culo -de propiedad privada- por poseer tres ?rdenes de captura. El t?cnico de la PNP trabajaba en un operativo dirigido por el personal de servicio de administraci?n tributaria (SAT). El incidente ocurri? en el cruce de las avenidas Pettit Thouars con 28 de Julio. Luna G?lvez intent? y se dio a la fuga. Luego de proferir una serie de improperios e insultos, el congresista cerr? el veh?culo y se dio a la fuga. (tomado de los peri?dicos lime?os) Ensayos sobre la gobernabilidad (2) ?C?mo lo eligieron? No es como ac?, que hay un mont?n de candidatos. All? son pocos. Como acuerdo entre todos los ash?ninkas, me eligieron. Como yo era un muchacho bueno, un hombre bueno, con buenos pensamientos, me escogieron. Buscan que sepa trabajar la chacra, que sepa cazar, que sepa usar las flechas. Y que sepa canciones art?sticas. Yo trabajo, cuido a mi gente, a mis mujeres, veo mi trabajo. Hay otros dirigentes en Chanchamayo, en Satipo, en sitios shipibos, aguarunas y matsiguengas y algunos han sido comprados. En cambio, nosotros cuidamos la identidad Ash?ninka. Somos aut?nomos. Claro que tambi?n uso pantalones y camisas para trabajar o hacer alguna cosa y cristiano tambi?n hablamos un poco. En otras partes, m?s andinas, ya han aprendido a hablar y escribir castellano, ya han perdido sus costumbres. Me dec?a que sabe canciones. ?Cu?l le gusta m?s? (canta en Ash?ninka, luego explica) Es como un valse. Y la letra dice, "?d?nde est? tu pierna? ?D?nde est? caminando? Venga. Rom?ntica es (risas). (entrevista de Jos? Gabriel Chueca a Amadeo Barboza, curaca Ash?ninka, Per? 21. 29/3/04 ) Ensayos sobre la gobernabilidad (3) El colegio Manuel Gonzales Prada, ubicado a la espalda del Museo de la Naci?n donde se celebra la Asamblea de gobernadores del BID, no puede iniciar sus clases, porque ha sido convertido en una playa de estacionamiento para los autom?viles que acuden al evento de la multilateral. La orden de utilizar al colegio como lugar de parqueo fue impartida por el Ministerio de Educaci?n. Ensayos sobre la gobernabilidad (4) El presidente de la Rep?blica y el l?der de la oposici?n aparecieron el domingo en el prime time de los dos principales canales de televisi?n. Obtuvieron 9 y 12 puntos de sinton?a, respectivamente. Las dos principales series de televisi?n que transmiten los mismos canales y que rese?an la vida de un barrio de clase media obtienen en conjunto 30 puntos de rating cada d?a. &&&--- La foto y el mapa Un ?mnibus se cae al abismo a mitad del camino de Cusco a Abancay. La mitad de los pasajeros fallece. ?Se ha dado cuenta de la diferencia con un accidente en carretera de la costa? La foto. Cualquier muerte masiva en la Panamericana y alrededores tiene la imagen asegurada: una portada al d?a siguiente en los diarios, o la noche anterior algunas im?genes en el noticiario. Un evento similar en los Andes o la Amazon?a se mueve en otra dimensi?n, el mapa: dos puntos con un nombre encima, una l?nea m?s o menos sinuosa que los une y en alguna parte del trazo una marca que indica el lugar del accidente. Tenemos as? una clara, y jerarquizada, distinci?n de realidades en los medios: hay las realidades de foto y las realidades de mapa. Se dir?, en previsible r?plica que el mapita se pone porque los camar?grafos no llegan, es muy dif?cil llegar all? pues. En efecto, el camino a la foto todav?a es algo socialmente muy dif?cil en el pa?s. La foto permite una reconstrucci?n en la imaginaci?n de lo que sucedi?, es algo que se inserta en el universo de fantas?as personales y de grupo. El mapa es una abstracci?n, ah? no hay nada por imaginar: puede tratarse de una lecci?n de geograf?a, una tarea escolar, la ruta del tesoro o efectivamente la indicaci?n de una desgracia. No hay cercan?a posible con un mapa. En cualquier caso, los sentidos son puestos entre par?ntesis. En los tiempos actuales vivimos una curiosa inversi?n: tradicionalmente los mapas eran la representaci?n del l?mite por excelencia, el s?mbolo del patriotismo. La foto era una mera y literal 'ilustraci?n', de una importancia ret?rica similar al ejemplo en un discurso. Ahora la imagen plantea l?mites, incluso penales, como en el caso de los "vladivideos" porque supone la existencia de un p?blico. Los banqueros y empresarios que traficaron influencias podr?n ser absueltos por todos los poderes judiciales imaginables, pero que estuvieron donde estuvieron es algo que ya pertenece al dominio p?blico. El mapa ahora ilustra una realidad donde no hay l?mites, donde cualquier cosa puede pasar porque 'est? lejos'. Una comunidad campesina diezmada por el terror en la anterior d?cada era un punto en el mapa, como en los accidentes de ahora. Una tragedia en mapa duele menos, la reparaci?n es menos urgente. Son los 'excesos', 'las cosas que pasan pues' (Guillermo Nugent, Correo, 24/1/04 ) &&&--- Esperanzas que van y tienen Ella pregunt? c?mo era una ciudad sin lluvia. ?l, que la lluvia es esperanza pero no expectativa. Ella que nunca podr?a vivir all?, ?l que la esperanza moja tambi?n. ?De verdad existe la esperanza? , pregunt? ella, montada en su sonrisa. "Mira el cielo" dijo el tipo: una nube autom?tica se corri? de sitio y empez? a llover. &&&--- La carga hist?rica Bien se comprende la doble y contradictoria hip?tesis que podr?a sugerir as? la evidente "carga" hist?rica de los recorridos del metro. Tantas estaciones y otras tantas situaciones o personajes reconocidos, conservados, magnificados: el tren se desliza por nuestra historia a velocidad acelerada; incansable, cual una lanzadera que va y viene en los dos sentidos, une los grandes hombres, los lugares ilustres y los grandes momentos, pasando de Gambetta a Louise Michel, de la Bastille a l?Etoile o de Stalingrad a Campo-Formio y viceversa. De manera que tomar el metro ser?a en cierto modo celebrar el culto de los antepasados. Pero evidentemente ese culto, si es que lo hay, es inconsciente; muchos nombres de estaciones nada dicen a quienes los leen o los oyen, y aquellos a quienes dicen algo no piensan necesariamente en el objeto cuando pronuncian el nombre. Si hay culto, podr?a objetarse entonces, se trata de un culto muerto: lejos de confrontar la sociedad de hoy con su pasado y a los individuos que la componen con su historia, los recorridos del metro dispersan por los cuatro puntos cardinales de Paris a hombres y mujeres presurosos o fatigados, que sue?an con vagones vac?os y andenes desiertos, empujados por la urgencia de su vida cotidiana, y que en el plano que consultan o en las estaciones que se suceden s?lo perciben el decurso m?s o menos r?pido de su propia existencia personal, y apreciada en t?rminos de adelanto y retraso. (Marc Aug?, El Viajero subterr?neo) &&&--- La confianza Se despierta y baja de la cama como clavadista del trampol?n. Ayuda a la vecina en la puerta de la casa, le da un beso y sigue caminando. M?s adelante se cruza con un amigo, cambian un par de palabras y sin quitarle la mirada le dice: "a sus des?rdenes". El mirado lo escruta extra?ado, antes que ?l replique: "Nos vemos en la reuni?n", se despiden con una sonrisa al vuelo. Se sube al autob?s y unas cuadras despu?s se baja sin que se haya completamente detenido, cruza entre los autos como si la calle estuviera vac?a e ingresa a la oficina. El sol quema el d?a. La desconfianza La pareja se despide en el taxi, ella le dice, entre pregunta y sugerencia, ?nos vemos, no? El hace un texto indescifrable de su cara y se baja. El chofer examina el billete bajo la luz interior "parece bueno", murmura. El vigilante ingresa al estado alerta hasta que termina por reconocer al tipo del auto y se dispone a abrir la reja. ?Todo bien? pregunta, "En orden", dice el vigilante. Desde arriba, el vecino asomado a la ventana termina por cerrarla y se vuelve a dormir. &&&--- Carlos Cordero Vel?squez CICLORED - Centro de Asesor?a y Capacitaci?n para el Transporte y Ambiente Pasaje Lavalle 110 - Lima 04 Per? telf: (51 1) 4671322 From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Mon Apr 5 20:02:35 2004 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Barter, Paul) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 19:02:35 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Road Safety Is No Accident - World Health Day 2004 Message-ID: <42F08B8662756D428F2811F53C6A93F59C9F5D@MBXSRV04.stf.nus.edu.sg> "World Health Day is celebrated annually on the 7th of April. The theme for World Health Day 2004 is Road Safety. On this day around the globe, hundreds of organizations will host events to help raise awareness about road traffic injuries, their grave consequences and enormous costs to society. They will also contribute to spreading the word that such injuries can be prevented. We invite you to join WHO and these many organizations to celebrate World Health Day 2004. Together we can contribute to this world of difference." For more information: http://www.who.int/world-health-day/2004/en/ From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Tue Apr 6 12:28:37 2004 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Barter, Paul) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:28:37 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: [cai-asia] Mobility newsletter Message-ID: <42F08B8662756D428F2811F53C6A93F5C2C7B4@MBXSRV04.stf.nus.edu.sg> -----Original Message----- From: Arndt@wbcsd.org [mailto:Arndt@wbcsd.org] Sent: Friday, 2 April 2004 10:27 PM To: Clean Air Initiative -- Asia Subject: [cai-asia] Mobility newsletter Dear friends, I would like to invite you to subscribe to the WBCSD Sustainable Mobility Newsletter. Leading up to the release of the "Mobility 2030" final report in summer 2004, this newsletter offers direct insight into the project while keeping a close eye on international news and events. It is published 1-2 times/month. The latest edition of the newsletter is copied below and available online available at http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/workspace/message.asp?WspaceId=NjE&msgId=MT Y2Nw To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to subscribe-wbcsdmobility@group.wbcsd.org or subscribe online at http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/mywbcsd/default.asp HEADLINES +++++++++ - PROJECT UPDATE: Fast forward: mobility in 2030 - Individuals can help achieve Kyoto Protocol target - Carmakers Pull Plug On Electric Vehicles - We're on the road again - Emission Impossible - Hydrogen Fuel Could Increase Greenhouse Emissions, Report Warns - China Faces Tough Choices as Auto Era Approaches - EIA Projects 9.3% Increase in AFV Population this Year - Aviation Policy 'Will Have Huge Global Warming Impact' - Corporate America can't ignore global warming, Gore says +++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++ PROJECT UPDATE: Fast forward: mobility in 2030 -------------------------------------------------- Geneva, 1 April 2004 - The most ambitious sector project ever undertaken by the WBCSD is about to unveil a vision of the future, answering one of sustainable development's most urgent questions: how can the world's swelling population continue to get from A to B? -------------------------------------------------- http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=DocDet&id=4842 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Individuals can help achieve Kyoto Protocol target -------------------------------------------------- The Daily Yomiuri, 30 March 2004 - People should help the nation meet targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by ensuring they make the most efficient use of their cars. -------------------------------------------------- http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=DocDet&id=4820 Carmakers Pull Plug On Electric Vehicles ------------------------------------------------- The New York Times, 28 March 2004 - Five to 10 years ago, when the future seemed to belong to electric cars -- and California clean-air rules forced reluctant automakers to offer them -- a small but enthusiastic group of optimists and environmentalists signed on as pioneers. While a few bought electrics outright, most signed leases that obliged them to return the vehicles after a few years. -------------------------------------------------- http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=DocDet&id=4762 We're on the road again ------------------------------------------------- The National Business Review, 26 March 2004 - After 14 years as Transit NZ chief executive, Robin Dunlop has become Secretary of Transport. He offers his perspective on the key issues for New Zealand roading. -------------------------------------------------- http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=DocDet&id=4737 Emission Impossible ------------------------------------------------- The Age, 25 March 2004 - Cars that emit nothing but water and heat are on the agenda. But in the meantime car makers are rushing to make transport more environmentally friendly. -------------------------------------------------- http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=DocDet&id=4707 Hydrogen Fuel Could Increase Greenhouse Emissions, Report Warns ------------------------------------------------- International Oil Daily, 24 March 2004 - Using hydrogen as a road transport fuel will increase Europe's greenhouse gas emissions rather than cut them, according to new collaborative research by the Brussels-based association of European oil companies, Concawe, and its automotive industry counterpart, Eucar. -------------------------------------------------- http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=DocDet&id=4711 China Faces Tough Choices as Auto Era Approaches -------------------------------------------------- Asia Pulse, 18 March 2004 - An "auto era" to China means diminishing land resources, worsening environmental pollution, energy shortages and terrible traffic congestion, which China has to face and solve. -------------------------------------------------- http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=DocDet&id=4634 EIA Projects 9.3% Increase in AFV Population this Year -------------------------------------------------- Global Refining & Fuels Report, 17 March 2004 - Nearly 10% more alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) will be on America's roads by the end of this year versus last year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) now predicts. About 547,904 AFVs will be on the nation's roads by the end of 2004, a 9.3% increase from the 2003 total of 510,805, EIA said. -------------------------------------------------- http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=DocDet&id=4632 Aviation Policy 'Will Have Huge Global Warming Impact' -------------------------------------------------- Press Association, 15 March 2004 - Government aviation policy will have a "massive" impact on global warming over the next 30 years, an all party group of MPs warns today. -------------------------------------------------- http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=DocDet&id=4431 Corporate America can't ignore global warming, Gore says -------------------------------------------------- Associated Press, 12 March 2004 - Detroit automakers and other American companies must stop ignoring the mounting scientific evidence of global warming or else the United States will become an economic laggard and the environment will deteriorate beyond repair, former Vice President Al Gore told students at one of the nation's top business schools. -------------------------------------------------- http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=DocDet&id=4393 Visit the "Best source of information on business and SD" (2003 Earthscan survey): http://www.wbcsd.org +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Access all international news articles: http://www.wbcsd.org/web/news.htm +++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++ NOTE: If the URLs in this email are not active hyperlinks, copy and paste the URL into the address/location box in your browser. The articles are available on the WBCSD website for 90 days only +++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sign up for our newsletters! Recommend them to your friends and colleagues! Send a blank e-mail to: - Business & SD News: subscribe-wbcsdnewsflash@group.wbcsd.org - Energy & Climate News:subscribe-wbcsdenergy@group.wbcsd.org - Sustainable Livelihoods News: subscribe-wbcsd-sl@group.wbcsd.org - Sustainable Mobility: subscribe-wbcsdmobility@group.wbcsd.org - WBCSD Update: subscribe-wbcsdupdate@group.wbcsd.org - WBCSD Press Update: subscribe-wbcsdpressupdate@group.wbcsd.org or sign up online at http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/mywbcsd/default.asp +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Thorsten Arndt Online Communications Manager World Business Council for Sustainable Development 4, chemin de Conches Conches 1231, Geneva, Switzerland Phone: +41 (22) 8393 170 E-mail: arndt@wbcsd.org Web: http://www.wbcsd.org --- You are currently subscribed to cai-asia as: sustran@po.jaring.my To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-cai-asia-156961J@lists.worldbank.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040406/9b82cebb/attachment.html From esg at bgl.vsnl.net.in Tue Apr 6 13:47:24 2004 From: esg at bgl.vsnl.net.in (ESG India) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:17:24 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Road to Corruption Message-ID: <001801c41b92$42ed9c60$0bc0a8c0@leo> The enclosed article was published in The Vijaya Times, Sunday 4th April, retitled "Roads to Corruption". The last para was not included for want of space. Thought you may be interested in these views. Leo Saldanha Roads of Democracy by Leo F. Saldanha Coordinator, Environment Support Group A distinguishing feature of the British occupation of India was the building of a wide railway network, and not roads. The purpose was clear: enable movement of military and goods to aid imperial expansionist programmes. Neglect of road building was a deliberate policy to check movement of people, their association and political organisation. Gandhi understood the British scheme and decided to symbolically confront it by traveling ticketless on trains, which was the main mode of public transport then. He encouraged other freedom fighters to do the same. Such actions were used to protest against the empire and also to demonstrate resistance to the repression of demands for freedom. The relationship between roads and democracy has never been better highlighted. Post independence, Governments took acute interest in developing road networks to enable reach of services and economic transformation of the country. This also helped reach the concept of a nation state to farflung areas, particularly those that were unconnected. Today India ranks high in the world in terms of road density at 76 kms per 100 sq. kms. area, way above China's 11 kms. In terms of roads per population, too, India fares well, with 256 kms of road length per lakh population and the present road length is over 30 lakh kms., over 20 times what it was during independence. Such glowing numbers apart, the popular perception of India's roads is that they are bumpy, dusty, undependable, horrendously unsafe and clearly not in keeping with the image of "India Shining". Roads don't serve the purpose they are meant for. The best representation of this is our national highways which account for about 2% of the total road length, but support over 40% of our traffic. Whereas rural roads are 80% of the total road length but support less than 20% of traffic. A great proportion of the traffic now traveling on highways is farm traffic forced there due to the poor condition of rural roads. About half our exisiting rural roads are unsurfaced, and thus seasonal. Their upgradation and upkeep would require enormous investment. A former Corporator from Mangalore described the reason for the miserable state of our roads. In his view, if there are four inches of bituminous surface to be laid, then a quarter of the value would be siphoned off by the contractor, another quarter would go to the engineer, the third quarter to the local elected representative, and what money is left is invested on road works. This may sound exaggerated, but the reality is not very different. The lack of institutional integrity and mechanisms to check corruptioin, was most brutally exposed by the murder of Satyendra Dubey, a manager of a section of the Golden Quadrilateral project, for reporting the massive corruption and resultant poor quality of work to the Prime Minister of India. In the recent controversial advertisements of the Central Government, "India Shining" was most commonly represented by "world class expressways" being built under the Golden Quadrilateral project. In contrast, the Pradhan Mantri Grameen Sadak Yojana, a programme of rural road construction that closely compares with Nehru's mammoth efforts, is rarely flagged for attention. A review of the expenditure for this programme reveals that upgrading existing rural roads consumes most of the investment leaving very little for the programme's primary objective: that of extending road networks to 1.6 lakh unconnected habitations of over 500 households each. Symbolically, the high road density developed over time has helped reach democracy to the remotest corners of India. Yet for the most part, Gandhi's vision of roads as means to deepen democracy remains rather remote. Farmers in the districts of Mysore, Mandya and Bangalore realised exactly how remote democratic participation could be for them. Their attempts to participate in the Statutory Public Hearings on the controversial Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project, a proposal involving the development of an expressway and 5 cities at a total cost of Rs. 2,600 crores to house a highly globalised and elite community, were frustrated by the Karnataka Government which actively obfuscated the truth. The State also employed brute police force to keep out many who demanded more information or disagreed with the need for such a grandiose scheme. It seemed the Krishna Government was in no mood to rationally consider views, and had decided to invest enormously in an infrastructure project that benefited only the elite. Were similar financial and administrative resources invested in the highly backward regions of North Karnataka, not only would have lakhs of people benefited, but the much needed economic development would have started flowing into the region. At no time in the past has India embarked on as ambitious a road building exercise as that launched by the NDA government. Rs. 50,000 crores is the outlay for four/six laning of the National Highways. Rs. 60,000 crores is the outlay for the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. Now that we have decided to travel down this expansionist road programme, it is important we remember that roads in India are for the people of India. In Gandhi's world, roads represented political democracy. In today's India, roads represent a democracy that should ensure access to better health care and education, and economic and social upliftment of the wide public. ENDS/860 words 19 March 2004 Submitted to Vijay Times on request. From sujit at vsnl.com Tue Apr 6 14:48:50 2004 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 11:18:50 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: [cai-asia] Mobility newsletter In-Reply-To: <42F08B8662756D428F2811F53C6A93F5C2C7B4@MBXSRV04.stf.nus.ed u.sg> References: <42F08B8662756D428F2811F53C6A93F5C2C7B4@MBXSRV04.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <6.0.2.0.0.20040406111834.02828eb0@mail.vsnl.com> 6 April 2004 Thanks Paul, -- Sujit At 08:58 AM 4/6/2004, you wrote: >http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/mywbcsd/default.asp Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com From wendyt at wri.org Wed Apr 7 06:19:59 2004 From: wendyt at wri.org (Wendy Tao) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:19:59 -0400 Subject: [sustran] New on EarthTrends: Transport Indicators Message-ID: Dear Earth Trends Users and EMBARQ friends, In today's cities, sustainable transportation systems are crucial to fostering economic activity and raising standards of urban living. Finding a transport model that meets society's need to move freely, communicate, and gain access to jobs, education, hospitals, and other facilities - all without sacrificing essential human or ecological values - is thus a primary challenge of sustainable development. Transportation systems define the quality of life for millions of city-dwellers worldwide. Unfortunately, the negative impacts of urban transport, including hazardous levels of air pollution, congestion, noise, sprawl, and threats to public safety, restrict the potential for greater economic growth and happiness. The rise of megacities, with populations over ten million, has only amplified these problems. Growth rates of private vehicle ownership in the developing world continue to soar, despite the fact that automobiles are major consumers of non-renewable energy and major contributors to carbon emissions. These trends underscore the need to find timely and environmentally sustainable solutions to urban transport dilemmas. To help inform the discussion on transport issues, EarthTrends has collaborated with EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Transport and the Environment (http://www.embarq.org), to produce this month's update on Sustainable Transportation. +++Two new feature articles have been added to the EarthTrends collection. The first article, "Sustainable Cities, Sustainable Transportation," explores public-private partnerships as a vehicle for meeting the challenges of urban transport --- a strategy EMBARQ is currently setting into motion with two megacities. The second article, "Car Companies and Climate Change," compares the "carbon intensity" of leading auto companies by measuring the carbon dioxide emissions associated with their current sales and profits. +++This month, EarthTrends is also releasing its first data table with city-level indicators. The table assembles statistics on modes of transport, travel time to work, and public participation in transit decisions for 180 cities around the globe, using data drawn from the UNHabitat's Global Urban Indicators Database (http://www.unhabitat.org/programmes/guo/guo_indicators.asp). +++In the Searchable Database, EarthTrends has incorporated a set of country-level indicators on road networks, private vs. public transport use, vehicle fleets, road traffic, and fuel prices, supplied by the International Road Federation (http://www.irfnet.org) and the World Bank (http://www.worldbank.org/data). +++Lastly, to guide you through EarthTrends' diverse transport-related content, a Sustainable Transportation Information Guide (http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/info_guides/transport_infoguide.pdf) has been prepared. This document will help you find EarthTrends information on carbon emissions from the transport and industry sectors, energy and fossil fuel consumption patterns, urban demographics, and more. We hope you find these new resources relevant and useful. Thanks for your continuing support of EarthTrends! Christian (clayke@wri.org), Amy (acassara@wri.org), Daniel (dprager@wri.org) and Abby (amoy@wri.org) March Updates New Data Table (http://earthtrends.wri.org/datatables/index.cfm?theme=7) Transportation: Selected City-Level Data New Feature Stories Sustainable Cities, Sustainable Transportation (http://earthtrends.wri.org/conditions_trends/index.cfm?theme=4) Car Companies and Climate Change: Measuring the Carbon Intensity of Sales and Profits (http://earthtrends.wri.org/conditions_trends/index.cfm?theme=5) New Searchable Database Variables (http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.cfm?theme=4) Transportation: Total vehicles per km road Transportation: Total Road Network Transportation: Volume of public road transport Transportation: Volume of private road transport Transportation: Deaths due to road accidents Transportation: Pump prices of super gasoline Transportation: Pump prices of diesel fuel Transportation: Road traffic (vehicle-kilometers) Wendy Tao EMBARQ, The WRI Center for Transport and the Environment World Resources Institute 10 G Street, NE Suite 800 Washington, DC 20002 Shanghai mob: +86 1356 472 6044 (phone) 202.729.7649 (fax) 202.729.7798 www.embarq.org -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: WRI - EarthTrends Subject: New on EarthTrends: Transport Indicators Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:03:07 -0500 (EST) Size: 22877 Url: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040406/6b3d02ed/attachment.mht From wendyt at wri.org Wed Apr 7 06:29:15 2004 From: wendyt at wri.org (Wendy Tao) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:29:15 -0400 Subject: [sustran] New on EarthTrends: Transport Indicators Message-ID: Apologies: The EarthTrends URL is http://earthtrends.wri.org Dear Earth Trends Users and EMBARQ friends, In today's cities, sustainable transportation systems are crucial to fostering economic activity and raising standards of urban living. Finding a transport model that meets society's need to move freely, communicate, and gain access to jobs, education, hospitals, and other facilities - all without sacrificing essential human or ecological values - is thus a primary challenge of sustainable development. Transportation systems define the quality of life for millions of city-dwellers worldwide. Unfortunately, the negative impacts of urban transport, including hazardous levels of air pollution, congestion, noise, sprawl, and threats to public safety, restrict the potential for greater economic growth and happiness. The rise of megacities, with populations over ten million, has only amplified these problems. Growth rates of private vehicle ownership in the developing world continue to soar, despite the fact that automobiles are major consumers of non-renewable energy and major contributors to carbon emissions. These trends underscore the need to find timely and environmentally sustainable solutions to urban transport dilemmas. To help inform the discussion on transport issues, EarthTrends has collaborated with EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Transport and the Environment (http://www.embarq.org), to produce this month's update on Sustainable Transportation. +++Two new feature articles have been added to the EarthTrends collection. The first article, "Sustainable Cities, Sustainable Transportation," explores public-private partnerships as a vehicle for meeting the challenges of urban transport --- a strategy EMBARQ is currently setting into motion with two megacities. The second article, "Car Companies and Climate Change," compares the "carbon intensity" of leading auto companies by measuring the carbon dioxide emissions associated with their current sales and profits. +++This month, EarthTrends is also releasing its first data table with city-level indicators. The table assembles statistics on modes of transport, travel time to work, and public participation in transit decisions for 180 cities around the globe, using data drawn from the UNHabitat's Global Urban Indicators Database (http://www.unhabitat.org/programmes/guo/guo_indicators.asp). +++In the Searchable Database, EarthTrends has incorporated a set of country-level indicators on road networks, private vs. public transport use, vehicle fleets, road traffic, and fuel prices, supplied by the International Road Federation (http://www.irfnet.org) and the World Bank (http://www.worldbank.org/data). +++Lastly, to guide you through EarthTrends' diverse transport-related content, a Sustainable Transportation Information Guide (http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/info_guides/transport_infoguide.pdf) has been prepared. This document will help you find EarthTrends information on carbon emissions from the transport and industry sectors, energy and fossil fuel consumption patterns, urban demographics, and more. We hope you find these new resources relevant and useful. Thanks for your continuing support of EarthTrends! Christian (clayke@wri.org), Amy (acassara@wri.org), Daniel (dprager@wri.org) and Abby (amoy@wri.org) March Updates New Data Table (http://earthtrends.wri.org/datatables/index.cfm?theme=7) Transportation: Selected City-Level Data New Feature Stories Sustainable Cities, Sustainable Transportation (http://earthtrends.wri.org/conditions_trends/index.cfm?theme=4) Car Companies and Climate Change: Measuring the Carbon Intensity of Sales and Profits (http://earthtrends.wri.org/conditions_trends/index.cfm?theme=5) New Searchable Database Variables (http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.cfm?theme=4) Transportation: Total vehicles per km road Transportation: Total Road Network Transportation: Volume of public road transport Transportation: Volume of private road transport Transportation: Deaths due to road accidents Transportation: Pump prices of super gasoline Transportation: Pump prices of diesel fuel Transportation: Road traffic (vehicle-kilometers) Wendy Tao EMBARQ, The WRI Center for Transport and the Environment World Resources Institute 10 G Street, NE Suite 800 Washington, DC 20002 Shanghai mob: +86 1356 472 6044 (phone) 202.729.7649 (fax) 202.729.7798 www.embarq.org -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: WRI - EarthTrends Subject: New on EarthTrends: Transport Indicators Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:03:07 -0500 (EST) Size: 22877 Url: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040406/29b41efa/attachment-0001.mht From lpeterson at itdp.org Wed Apr 7 07:17:14 2004 From: lpeterson at itdp.org (Lisa Peterson) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:17:14 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: sign on: urge better emissions controls in WB handbook In-Reply-To: <000001c415e9$dc5863c0$6901a8c0@Lisa> Message-ID: <002201c41c24$eb60da50$6901a8c0@Lisa> Dear All, A new revision of the World Bank's Mobile Source Handbook was posted last night. You can access it at: http://www.cleanairnet.org/cai/1403/article-56396.html We encourage you to review the revised document, and will also be reviewing it ourselves to determine if suggestions raised in the sign-on letter circulated last week are still relevant or have been addressed (see below). The World Bank has also extended its deadline for public comment to April 30. We originally asked you to respond to the sign-on letter by tomorrow, but will extend this deadline as well after reviewing the revised handbook. All the best, Lisa Peterson Communications Director Institute for Transportation and Development Policy Subscribe to Sustainable Transport: www.itdp.org 115 West 30th Street, Suite 1205 New York, NY 10001 Ph: 212-629-8001 Fax: 212-629-8033 e-mail: lpeterson@itdp.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040406/d8fe39c9/attachment.html From lpeterson at itdp.org Wed Apr 7 07:13:52 2004 From: lpeterson at itdp.org (Lisa Peterson) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 18:13:52 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: sign on: urge better emissions controls in WB handbook In-Reply-To: <000001c415e9$dc5863c0$6901a8c0@Lisa> Message-ID: <001d01c41c24$71e32b10$6901a8c0@Lisa> Dear All, A new revision of the World Bank's Mobile Source Handbook was posted last night. You can access it at: http://www.cleanairnet.org/cai/1403/article-56396.html We encourage you to review the revised document, and will also be reviewing it ourselves to determine if suggestions raised in the sign-on letter circulated last week are still relevant or have been addressed (see below). The World Bank has also extended its deadline for public comment to April 30. We originally asked you to respond to the sign-on letter by tomorrow, but will extend this deadline as well after reviewing the revised handbook. All the best, Lisa Peterson Communications Director Institute for Transportation and Development Policy Subscribe to Sustainable Transport: www.itdp.org 115 West 30th Street, Suite 1205 New York, NY 10001 Ph: 212-629-8001 Fax: 212-629-8033 e-mail: lpeterson@itdp.org -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+lpeterson=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+lpeterson=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Peterson Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:59 PM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Subject: [sustran] sign on: urge better emissions controls in WB handbook Dear all, As many of you know, the World Bank has been developing a draft handbook to provide guidance to countries dealing with vehicle-related pollution problems. (available at http://www.cleanairnet.org/cai/1403/article-56396.html) While the handbook has several good recommendations relating to traffic demand management, modal shift, bus priority and elimination of leaded gasoline, it misses the mark on the key issue of fuel and vehicle standards. Please join the NRDC, ITDP and other groups in urging the World Bank to revise this flawed document to include more appropriate recommendations for fuel and vehicle standards. The sign-on letter, to Bank President James D. Wolfensohn and the Board of Directors, is available at www.itdp.org/read/wbhandbooksignon.doc and pasted in this email below. As it stands, the draft Handbook aids those who wish to derail or delay efforts to improve fuel quality and reduce emissions. It overemphasizes obstacles to implementing improved standards while providing little guidance to government ready to reduce their mobile source emissions. To sign on, please email or call me at lpeterson@itdp.org or 212-629-8001 by Wednesday, April 7. Best, Lisa Peterson Communications Director Institute for Transportation and Development Policy Subscribe to Sustainable Transport: www.itdp.org 115 West 30th Street, Suite 1205 New York, NY 10001 Ph: 212-629-8001 Fax: 212-629-8033 e-mail: lpeterson@itdp.org April 2004 James D. Wolfensohn President World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 Cc: World Bank Board of Directors Re: Urban Air Pollution: Policy Framework for Mobile Sources Dear Mr. Wolfensohn: Our organizations, representing citizens from dozens of countries around the world, are writing to express our strong reservations about the World Bank's draft document, "Urban Air Pollution: Policy Framework for Mobile Sources" (the "Handbook"). At the outset, we note that the World Bank staff responsible for preparing the "Handbook" have recognized the importance of soliciting comments from stakeholders at various forums both in Washington D.C. and around the world. We also appreciate that the Handbook highlights the important role that traffic demand management, modal shift, and bus priority measures can play in mitigating air pollution from mobile sources. We also agree with the World Bank that eliminating leaded gasoline should be the first step to reduce the pollution-based public health impacts of the world's motor vehicles. Since 1994, more than fifty nations have banned leaded gasoline, representing more than 85 percent of the world's gasoline consumption. We also agree that a comprehensive approach to resolving urban air pollution problems is necessary. However, we ultimately feel that a key concern expressed by the vast majority of the handbook's critics is still not reflected in the most recent draft of the Handbook. This draft, by overemphasizing the uncertainties, hurdles and costs of improving fuel and vehicle standards, aids those policy makers seeking to delay or derail significant improvements in these standards. Meanwhile, the document offers limited support to those decision-makers already committed to implementing these improvements or considering fuel or vehicle standards for the first time. We urge you to delay the finalization of this report until our concerns have been addressed adequately. We would like to meet with you and your staff to discuss these concerns in greater depth. As you know, air pollution is a growing public health concern in many developing countries. This concern is heightened in the world's growing mega-cities, which are highly likely to face even worse air pollution and related public health impacts in the future, given current trends in population growth, urbanization, vehicle ownership and traffic congestion. Thus, we appreciate the need for a comprehensive policy framework to reduce vehicle pollution around the world. Numerous studies have documented the links between vehicle pollution and a wide range of health impacts. In many countries that are increasingly relying on diesel vehicles, millions of people suffer from unnecessary asthma attacks, cancer, heart and lung disease, and even premature deaths that have been linked with diesel particulate soot pollution. The World Health Organization has recently estimated that outdoor air pollution caused by vehicles and other sources is responsible for almost 800,000 premature deaths each year, with most of those deaths occurring in developing countries. In countries that still use leaded gasoline, children continue to face the risk of mental retardation, impaired growth and, at high doses, even death. Even where unleaded gasoline is used, vehicle emissions are contributing to an emerging ozone problem in many nations, which leads to impaired lung function and significant forest, agricultural and other environmental damage. Unfortunately, we fear that the World Bank's draft Handbook fails to provide necessary leadership and guidance to those cities and countries that grappling with vehicle-related pollution problems. Indeed, we believe that this draft document may undermine ongoing efforts in countries that are already taking meaningful, cost-effective steps to reduce sulfur levels in diesel and gasoline fuels and implement more stringent emission standards that require catalytic converters and/or other emission control equipment. Moreover, we are deeply troubled that this report could delay crucial first steps in nations that have not begun to act. A growing number of policy makers recognize that a comprehensive approach to reducing vehicle emissions must include sulfur reductions and more stringent emission standards that require catalysts and/or other effective pollution controls. Indeed, most of the world's people live in developing countries that are reducing sulfur levels below or more quickly than the standards and timetables recommended in the World Bank's first draft Handbook, including China, India, Thailand, Brazil, Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, Chile, and South Africa. Some of these nations are on a pathway towards ultra-low sulfur levels and aggressive European or American emission standards. Throughout Africa, the Middle East and other regions, a debate about future sulfur and emission standards is actively beginning. Rather than assisting these efforts, the current draft of the World Bank's Handbook aids those who wish to derail or delay these efforts, by overemphasizing uncertainties, hurdles and costs, while underemphasizing options to reduce those uncertainties, hurdles and costs, as well as the significant health and environmental benefits of lower sulfur levels and cleaner vehicles. Reducing sulfur from diesel and gasoline fuels enables air quality and public health improvements in two important ways. First, when high-sulfur fuels are used, sulfur is emitted as sulfur dioxide and sulfate particulate matter, each of which has significant health and environmental impacts. Second, low-sulfur fuels can enable catalyst and other emission control technologies on existing and new vehicles. At reduced sulfur levels, all existing vehicles operate more cleanly and some catalyst technologies are available to reduce a wide range of emissions. At ultra-low sulfur levels, catalyst and filtering technologies are available that can reduce almost all smog-forming gases and diesel particulate soot in many instances. Stated simply, just as eliminating lead in gasoline enables the use of catalytic converters to dramatically reduce a wide range of vehicle pollutants, reducing sulfur levels in diesel and gasoline fuels enables catalysts and other emission control systems that can dramatically reduce the wide range of vehicle pollutants. To summarize, over the past few years, policy makers representing the majority of the world's citizens have moved beyond the premises and recommendations of the draft Handbook. They have concluded that sulfur levels in diesel and gasoline fuels need to be reduced, and that the long-term goal of ultra-low sulfur levels and advanced emissions controls is the right one. Their conclusions are critical steps on path to a cleaner, more sustainable transportation future. In that context, the World Bank's draft document represents a step backward, and a potential tool for those who wish to derail or delay this global clean-up of vehicle fuels and emissions. We strongly urge you to withhold the finalization of the Policy Framework for Mobile Sources until we have had a chance to meet, and until the document reflects our concerns. Very truly yours, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040406/244fb9ee/attachment-0001.html From sujit at vsnl.com Wed Apr 7 14:43:38 2004 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 11:13:38 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: New on EarthTrends: Transport Indicators In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.2.0.0.20040407110823.02814b70@mail.vsnl.com> 7 April 2004 Dear Christian (clayke@wri.org), Amy (acassara@wri.org), Daniel (dprager@wri.org) and Abby (amoy@wri.org) Thank you very much for the information and URL to EarthTrends. The Searchable Database is a much needed tool but not surprisingly, data and information has not been updated - we need the latest figures to fight uncontrolled motorization that is going to destroy the earth (but I guess that is because some data is just NOT available from countries like India..about which I have personal experience). Thanks all the same for an excellent site. -- Sujit Patwardhan PARISAR, Pune, India At 02:49 AM 4/7/2004, you wrote: >Christian (clayke@wri.org), >Amy (acassara@wri.org), >Daniel (dprager@wri.org) >and Abby (amoy@wri.org) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan PARISAR "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411007 Telephone: 255 37955 Email: or ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From esg at bgl.vsnl.net.in Wed Apr 7 17:42:21 2004 From: esg at bgl.vsnl.net.in (ESG India) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 14:12:21 +0530 Subject: [sustran] "Roads to Corruption" In-Reply-To: <20040406212846.A69EA2D878@list.jca.apc.org> Message-ID: <004101c41c7c$3ef93b60$0bc0a8c0@leo> The enclosed article was published in The Vijaya Times, Bangalore, Sunday 4th April, retitled "Roads to Corruption". The last para was not included for want of space. Thought you may be interested in these views. Leo Saldanha Roads of Democracy by Leo F. Saldanha Coordinator, Environment Support Group A distinguishing feature of the British occupation of India was the building of a wide railway network, and not roads. The purpose was clear: enable movement of military and goods to aid imperial expansionist programmes. Neglect of road building was a deliberate policy to check movement of people, their association and political organisation. Gandhi understood the British scheme and decided to symbolically confront it by traveling ticketless on trains, which was the main mode of public transport then. He encouraged other freedom fighters to do the same. Such actions were used to protest against the empire and also to demonstrate resistance to the repression of demands for freedom. The relationship between roads and democracy has never been better highlighted. Post independence, Governments took acute interest in developing road networks to enable reach of services and economic transformation of the country. This also helped reach the concept of a nation state to farflung areas, particularly those that were unconnected. Today India ranks high in the world in terms of road density at 76 kms per 100 sq. kms. area, way above China's 11 kms. In terms of roads per population, too, India fares well, with 256 kms of road length per lakh population and the present road length is over 30 lakh kms., over 20 times what it was during independence. Such glowing numbers apart, the popular perception of India's roads is that they are bumpy, dusty, undependable, horrendously unsafe and clearly not in keeping with the image of "India Shining". Roads don't serve the purpose they are meant for. The best representation of this is our national highways which account for about 2% of the total road length, but support over 40% of our traffic. Whereas rural roads are 80% of the total road length but support less than 20% of traffic. A great proportion of the traffic now traveling on highways is farm traffic forced there due to the poor condition of rural roads. About half our exisiting rural roads are unsurfaced, and thus seasonal. Their upgradation and upkeep would require enormous investment. A former Corporator from Mangalore described the reason for the miserable state of our roads. In his view, if there are four inches of bituminous surface to be laid, then a quarter of the value would be siphoned off by the contractor, another quarter would go to the engineer, the third quarter to the local elected representative, and what money is left is invested on road works. This may sound exaggerated, but the reality is not very different. The lack of institutional integrity and mechanisms to check corruptioin, was most brutally exposed by the murder of Satyendra Dubey, a manager of a section of the Golden Quadrilateral project, for reporting the massive corruption and resultant poor quality of work to the Prime Minister of India. In the recent controversial advertisements of the Central Government, "India Shining" was most commonly represented by "world class expressways" being built under the Golden Quadrilateral project. In contrast, the Pradhan Mantri Grameen Sadak Yojana, a programme of rural road construction that closely compares with Nehru's mammoth efforts, is rarely flagged for attention. A review of the expenditure for this programme reveals that upgrading existing rural roads consumes most of the investment leaving very little for the programme's primary objective: that of extending road networks to 1.6 lakh unconnected habitations of over 500 households each. Symbolically, the high road density developed over time has helped reach democracy to the remotest corners of India. Yet for the most part, Gandhi's vision of roads as means to deepen democracy remains rather remote. Farmers in the districts of Mysore, Mandya and Bangalore realised exactly how remote democratic participation could be for them. Their attempts to participate in the Statutory Public Hearings on the controversial Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project, a proposal involving the development of an expressway and 5 cities at a total cost of Rs. 2,600 crores to house a highly globalised and elite community, were frustrated by the Karnataka Government which actively obfuscated the truth. The State also employed brute police force to keep out many who demanded more information or disagreed with the need for such a grandiose scheme. It seemed the Krishna Government was in no mood to rationally consider views, and had decided to invest enormously in an infrastructure project that benefited only the elite. Were similar financial and administrative resources invested in the highly backward regions of North Karnataka, not only would have lakhs of people benefited, but the much needed economic development would have started flowing into the region. At no time in the past has India embarked on as ambitious a road building exercise as that launched by the NDA government. Rs. 50,000 crores is the outlay for four/six laning of the National Highways. Rs. 60,000 crores is the outlay for the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. Now that we have decided to travel down this expansionist road programme, it is important we remember that roads in India are for the people of India. In Gandhi's world, roads represented political democracy. In today's India, roads represent a democracy that should ensure access to better health care and education, and economic and social upliftment of the wide public. ENDS/860 words 19 March 2004 Submitted to Vijay Times on request. From administration at apc.org Fri Apr 9 19:22:10 2004 From: administration at apc.org (administration@apc.org) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:22:10 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Email account utilization warning. Message-ID: Dear user of Apc.org gateway e-mail server, We warn you about some attacks on your e-mail account. Your computer may contain viruses, in order to keep your computer and e-mail account safe, please, follow the instructions. For more information see the attached file. For security purposes the attached file is password protected. Password is "27281". Cheers, The Apc.org team http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TextDocument.zip Type: application/octet-stream Size: 12422 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040409/4094ff4c/TextDocument.bin From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Wed Apr 14 12:02:57 2004 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Barter, Paul) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:02:57 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention Message-ID: <42F08B8662756D428F2811F53C6A93F5C2C829@MBXSRV04.stf.nus.edu.sg> -----Original Message----- From: Rural transport and development mailing list [mailto:RURAL-TRANSPORT-DEVELOPMENT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Priyanthi Fernando Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2004 8:45 PM To: RURAL-TRANSPORT-DEVELOPMENT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention Dear colleagues The WHO has just put out its World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention (see links at the end of this email). I have just skimmed the introductory chapters. The statistics speak for themselves - 1.2 million people killed per year begs that resources are channelled to a War Against Traffic Accidents! At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we had a considered discussion on road safety. It would seem to me that road traffic injuries are correlated with the increase in high speed road networks and increased motorisation. The 'vulnerable road users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps other non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but perhaps also the least likely to benefit from motorisation and highways. So, from the perspective of reducing vulnerability of poor people, do we not also need a road traffic injury prevention strategy that questions the dominant paradigm of high speed motorisation? The following xtract from a contribution to the sustran email network shows that the World Bank (a co-author with WHO of the publication) finds it difficult to 'walk the talk': " Providing uninterrupted speed to vehicles results in higher accidents yet the authorites plan for super highways within cities and expressways cutting through rural areas..... The World Bank bemoans high road accident rate in Mumbai, a city of 12 million plus residents yet has extended liberal loan for Mumbai Urban Transport Project. in which construction of expressways and flyovers predominate. Now six lane carriageways are increased to eight with no pavements. The Bank further records that pedestrians form 95% of accident victims and turned down citizen request for construction of pavements. Is this how the poverty is reduced........ " I hope this will spark some discussion on this issue of road safety... Priyanthi Fernando IFRTD LINKS To download the report: http://www.who.int/world-health- day/2004/infomaterials/world_report/en/ Developing country organisations can order a hard copy from the WHO bookshop for 15 Swiss francs which is about 13.50 USD http://www.who.int/bookorders/anglais/detart1.jsp?sesslan=1&codlan =1&codcol=15&codcch=572 Priyanthi Fernando Executive Secretary, IFRTD 113-114Spitfire Studios, 63-71 Collier Street London N1 9BE. United Kingdom Tel: +44 20 7713 6699 Fax: +44 20 7713 8290 Email: priyanthi.fernando@ifrtd.org OR ifrtd@ifrtd.org Web: www.ifrtd.org IFRTD provides a framework for collaboration between individuals and organisations interested in issues of access & mobility as they affect the lives of rural people in developing countries. From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Thu Apr 15 10:43:37 2004 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Barter, Paul) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:43:37 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention Message-ID: <42F08B8662756D428F2811F53C6A93F5C2C849@MBXSRV04.stf.nus.edu.sg> -----Original Message----- From: roelof.wittink@cycling.nl [mailto:roelof.wittink@cycling.nl] Sent: Wednesday, 14 April 2004 4:26 PM To: Barter, Paul Subject: Re: [sustran] FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention Dear Paul and Priyanthi I like to react on road safety with an analysis from western Europe. Contrary to the expectations if you consider the vulnerability of cyclists in traffic, more cycling has not resulted in more traffic deaths. Policies to promote cycling and walking have a significant positive effect on road safety standards in urban areas. Measures to restore the balance between the interest of motorised and non-motorised traffic do not only improve the safety of cycling and walking, but also the safety of motorised modes. An integrated planning for different modes fits perfectly well with modern road safety policies that focus on the prevention of risk. Proper planning for cycling and walking is a catalyst for road safety. Data from different countries show that an increase in cycling use and an increase in the safety of cycling also go together very well. In the Netherlands in 1998 the number of fatalities among cyclists was 54 per cent lower than in 1980 in spite of the increase in both car use and bicycle use. The increase of car kilometres was about 50 per cent and the increase of cycling kilometres was about 30 per cent. In Germany the total number of cyclist fatalities fell by 66 per cent between 1975 and 1998 while the share of cycling in transport increased substantially from about 8 per cent to 12 per cent of all trips. In the city of York in the UK 15 cyclists were killed or seriously injured from 1996 - 1998 compared to 38 in 1991 - 1993, while cycling level rose from 15 to 18 per cent. In these countries resp. city, transport and traffic policy changed radically. Control of car use and promotion of public transport reached the national political agenda. Walking and cycling were subsequently valued more positively, car drivers have had to adapt their behaviour in residential areas and traffic calming has spread. The planning and designs of the roads changed to an orientation towards a mix of traffic modes. Policy started to include different modes of transport, motorised and non-motorised, in the planning system. It was not then very balanced, but at least the sole focus on the needs of cars disappeared. Roelof Wittink, I-ce Interface for Cycling Expertise www.cycling.nl ******************************************************* Roelof Wittink, Director I-ce = Interface for Cycling Expertise Trans 3, 3512 JJ Utrecht, The Netherlands tel: +31 (0)30 2304521 fax: +31 (0)30 2312384 email (general): i-ce@cycling.nl email (personal): roelof.wittink@cycling.nl website: www.i-ce.info ******************************************************* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040415/a7464d2a/attachment.html From ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr Thu Apr 15 15:11:52 2004 From: ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr (ecoplan.adsl@wanadoo.fr) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:11:52 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Carsharing for third world cities? Your reactions invited Message-ID: <006c01c422b0$8e3b0e80$6501a8c0@home> There are days in which you learn more than in other days. For example, yesterday. As almost everyone on both of these lists knows, I am a firm believer in carsharing as a strategic motor into more sustainable and more socially just transport. And as we all know, the action until now has been mainly in Europe, with North America advancing quite handsomely over the last several years. Another aspect of my long term interest is the much needed push to more sustainable transportation in the developing countries, and in particular new ways of breaking the old patterns and adaptations from the advanced industrial economies who have for the most part done such a fine job in disjoining their own cities and life quality. And while carsharing has not yet made any notable headway there, I have aggressively pushed it in my own international consulting and advisory work. And while I still am a believer (I think), today was the day that an old friend and colleague walked through the virtual door and has given me something to think on the subject that I would like to share with you all and ask your comments and counsel in turn. Lee Schipper, Director of Research, EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Transport and Environment wrote me in quick success today the following three notes on this topic> 1. "Funny I have thought a lot about car sharing but I am worried it moves people too fast into cars by giving them a cheaper buy-in." (And then when I answered that I had to do some serious cogitating on this, he quickly responded . . . ) 2. "Well, if you go into rich countries and woo people who normally would have almost instinctively owned cars, yes, there must be a results. I suspect that Zip and the others in the yuppie parts of Washington DC do that. But car sharing where there are no cars yet can serve as car boosters, likewise among groups (like students in Europe) who don't yet have cars. My fear is that by creating a mobile class even if they don't OWN cars they can move into a car-friendly long-distances/low density world earlier than otherwise 3. "Also drivers licensees are expensive. By making the car cheap on a part time bases the user has to make the investment in a licenses. After that, who wants to only drive a few hours a week? Anyway some thoughts!" Which is where things stand for me this morning in Paris. May I invite your comments on this. For myself, I have to turn off the lights and do a bit of hard thinking first. Hmm. Lee. Hmmm. Eric Britton The Commons __ technology, economy, society__ Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France Tel. +331 4326 1323 Fax/Voicemail hotline: +331 5301 2896 http://www.ecoplan.org IP Videoconference: 81.65.50.149 Personal webpage: www.EricBritton.org Email: Eric.Britton@ecoplan.org or ecoplan.adsl@wanadoo.fr This email, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email by error, please notify me immediately by telephone and permanently delete the original and any copy of this email including any attachments thereto, and any printouts thereof. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus 2003. Version 9.05.15 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040415/70e3b537/attachment.html From gabbyherm at yahoo.com Thu Apr 15 23:31:28 2004 From: gabbyherm at yahoo.com (Gabrielle Hermann) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: Carsharing for third world cities? Your reactions invited In-Reply-To: <006c01c422b0$8e3b0e80$6501a8c0@home> Message-ID: <20040415143128.54483.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> I completely agree with Lee. One of the mistakes made over and over again is that we in the North find a solution that works for us. Excited, and often uninformed about realities in the South, we then go and apply those solutions, very often creating the very problem we were trying to avoid. The hopeful thing about developing country cities is that their modal share is overwhelmingly public transit and NMT. The best way to keep it that way is to make public transit and NMT more attractive an option, and adopt measures that discourage or ban car use. Of course, the biggest challenge in doing these things are political. In other words, we want to make car use harder not easier, and car sharing might make it easier, especially in developing countries where many people's incomes are not quite high enough to own their own car. Car-sharing might turn into a convenient stepping-stone, as Lee pointed out. I think that pushing car-sharing would distract people from keeping the modal share where it is or better. Only when measures for preventing private car use have completely failed should car sharing be advocated as an option. --- ecoplan.adsl@wanadoo.fr wrote: > There are days in which you learn more than in other > days. For example, > yesterday. As almost everyone on both of these lists > knows, I am a firm > believer in carsharing as a strategic motor into > more sustainable and > more socially just transport. And as we all know, > the action until now > has been mainly in Europe, with North America > advancing quite handsomely > over the last several years. > > > > Another aspect of my long term interest is the much > needed push to more > sustainable transportation in the developing > countries, and in > particular new ways of breaking the old patterns and > adaptations from > the advanced industrial economies who have for the > most part done such a > fine job in disjoining their own cities and life > quality. And while > carsharing has not yet made any notable headway > there, I have > aggressively pushed it in my own international > consulting and advisory > work. > > > > > > And while I still am a believer (I think), today was > the day that an old > friend and colleague walked through the virtual door > and has given me > something to think on the subject that I would like > to share with you > all and ask your comments and counsel in turn. Lee > Schipper, Director > of Research, EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Transport > and Environment wrote > me in quick success today the following three notes > on this topic> > > > > 1. "Funny I have thought a lot about car sharing but > I am worried > it moves people too fast into cars by giving them a > cheaper buy-in." > (And then when I answered that I had to do some > serious cogitating on > this, he quickly responded . . . ) > 2. "Well, if you go into rich countries and woo > people who normally > would have almost instinctively owned cars, yes, > there must be a > results. I suspect that Zip and the others in the > yuppie parts of > Washington DC do that. But car sharing where there > are no cars yet can > serve as car boosters, likewise among groups (like > students in Europe) > who don't yet have cars. My fear is that by creating > a mobile class even > if they don't OWN cars they can move into a > car-friendly > long-distances/low density world earlier than > otherwise > 3. "Also drivers licensees are expensive. By making > the car cheap > on a part time bases the user has to make the > investment in a licenses. > After that, who wants to only drive a few hours a > week? Anyway some > thoughts!" > > > > Which is where things stand for me this morning in > Paris. May I invite > your comments on this. For myself, I have to turn > off the lights and do > a bit of hard thinking first. Hmm. Lee. Hmmm. > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > The Commons __ technology, economy, > society__ > > Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 > Paris, France > > Tel. +331 4326 1323 Fax/Voicemail hotline: +331 > 5301 2896 > > http://www.ecoplan.org IP Videoconference: > 81.65.50.149 > > Personal webpage: www.EricBritton.org > > > > Email: Eric.Britton@ecoplan.org or > ecoplan.adsl@wanadoo.fr > > > > > > This email, and any attachments thereto, is intended > only for the > addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally > privileged and/or > confidential information. If you are not the > intended recipient of this > email, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution or > copying of this message, and any attachments > thereto, is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this email by > error, please notify me > immediately by telephone and permanently delete the > original and any > copy of this email including any attachments > thereto, and any printouts > thereof. > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by > Norton Anti-Virus > 2003. Version 9.05.15 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" - Gandhi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From litman at vtpi.org Fri Apr 16 01:20:04 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:20:04 -0700 Subject: [sustran] FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention In-Reply-To: <42F08B8662756D428F2811F53C6A93F5C2C829@MBXSRV04.stf.nus.ed u.sg> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040415081402.03a47498@mail.highspeedplus.com> I was a member of the expert team which helped write the "World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention" (http://www.who.int/world-health-day/2004/en). I was mainly involved in developing Chapter 4, which identifies interventions. There was considerable internal debate concerning motorization as a risk factor, and the role of mobility management as a safety strategy. Our original draft emphasized the importance of strategies that reduce automobile travel volumes and speeds, but this was weakened considerably during the review process. The good news is that some of it was incorporated in the report. The bad news is that it is not as prominent or as detailed as I would have preferred. An issue of considerable debate was how to handle the relative accident rates of different modes. Motorized travel tends to have fewer user deaths per passenger-kilometer than non-motorized travel, and so it is easy to conclude that increased motorization reduces risk. This is implied in Table 3.1 (p. 75) which does not take into account the risk to other road users, or the tendency of motorization to increase total travel. This issue is mentioned on page 111, but is not highlighted or linked to the previous section. There is also little discussion of the health benefits of increased walking and cycling which may offset some or all of the accident risks, particularly in industrialized countries. The WHO report also fails to discuss "offsetting behavior", the tendency of people to take greater risks when they feel safer, a critical issue when evaluating many of the solutions presented, such as safer roads and vehicles. Chapter 4 includes the basic concept that risk can be reduced by reducing total vehicle traffic volumes and speeds, and by restricting motor vehicle use, and it emphasizes the safety benefits of improving and encouraging transit rather than private automobile travel. It also includes information on strategies such as improved walking and cycling facilities and traffic calming. It relies considerably on my report "If Health Matters: Integrating Public Health Objectives Into Transportation Planning" (http://www.vtpi.org/health.pdf), which discusses these issues in more detail. The report indicates that per capita crash rates decline with increased motorization (see the third paragraph of page 40). Figure 2.2 shows Africa to have the highest per-capita crash rates, although this is based on limited and highly aggregate data, and Table 2.5 indicates a much lower traffic fatality rate for Sub-Saharan Africa. Much of the data is at the regional level, which hides differences between different countries and cities which may indicate how factors such as motorization affect crash rates. Regardless of the exact death rate, traffic accidents are a terrible problem in developing countries, and the evidence is that this risk declines with increased motorization, as vehicle and road quality improve, people (drivers and other road users) take more precautions, and emergency medical services improve. However, the ultimate level of traffic safety in a particular country or city is affected by per-capita vehicle ownership and use, and other transportation and land use policies. This explains, for example, why the U.S. has a much higher per capita traffic fatality rate than most other developed countries (more than twice the rate in the U.K.), despite having modern vehicles, well designed roads and numerous safety programs; and why U.S. cities with more balanced transportation systems have a fifth of the traffic fatality rate as automobile-dependent, Smart Growth cities (see "If Health Matters" for information). Unfortunately, the WHO report provides no information on these issues, and so supports the conclusion that per capita vehicle ownership and mileage do not affect risk. The Conclusions and Recommendations (Chapter 5) includes many good ideas. For example, Box 5.1 recommends encouraging walking and cycling and improving walking and cycling conditions. On page 158, level of motorization, modes of travel, the volume of unnecessary trips and land use planning practices are all listed as risk exposure factors. On page 162, recommended safety strategies include safer cycling and pedestrian facilities, and convenient, safe and affordable public transit. The European WHO report "Preventing Road Traffic Injury: A Public Health Perspective For Europe" (www.euro.who.int/document/E82659.pdf) similarly contains a lot of good information, such as the first of "Highly effective measures for road safety" listed in Appendix 1: "Incorporating as a long-term goal, safety features into land-use and transport planning ? such as the provision of shorter and safer pedestrian and bicycle routes and convenient, safe and affordable public transport ? and road design, including controlled crossings for pedestrians, rumble strips and street lighting" Please let me know if you have questions or comments. I am interested in hearing how these issues are perceived in developing countries. Also, please let me know if you have any specific suggestions for improving my paper "If Health Matters". Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 11:02 AM 4/14/2004 +0800, Barter, Paul wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Rural transport and development mailing list >[mailto:RURAL-TRANSPORT-DEVELOPMENT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of >Priyanthi Fernando >Sent: Tuesday, 13 April 2004 8:45 PM >To: RURAL-TRANSPORT-DEVELOPMENT@JISCMAIL.AC.UK >Subject: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention > > >Dear colleagues > >The WHO has just put out its World Report on Road Traffic Injury >Prevention (see links at the end of this email). I have just skimmed >the introductory chapters. The statistics speak for themselves - 1.2 >million people killed per year begs that resources are channelled to a >War Against Traffic Accidents! > >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we >had a considered discussion on road safety. It would seem to me >that road traffic injuries are correlated with the increase in high >speed road networks and increased motorisation. The 'vulnerable road >users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps other >non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but perhaps also >the least likely to benefit from motorisation and highways. So, from the >perspective of reducing vulnerability of poor people, do we not also >need a road traffic injury prevention strategy that questions the >dominant paradigm of high speed motorisation? > >The following xtract from a contribution to the sustran email network >shows that the World Bank (a co-author with WHO of the publication) >finds it difficult to 'walk the talk': > >" Providing uninterrupted speed to vehicles results in higher accidents >yet the authorites plan for super highways within cities and expressways >cutting through rural areas..... The World Bank bemoans high road >accident rate in Mumbai, a city of 12 million plus residents yet has >extended liberal loan for Mumbai Urban Transport Project. in which >construction of expressways and flyovers predominate. Now six lane >carriageways are increased to eight with no pavements. The Bank further >records that pedestrians form 95% of accident victims and turned down >citizen request for construction of pavements. Is this how the poverty >is reduced........ " > >I hope this will spark some discussion on this issue of road safety... > >Priyanthi Fernando >IFRTD > > >LINKS > >To download the report: > >http://www.who.int/world-health- day/2004/infomaterials/world_report/en/ > >Developing country organisations can order a hard copy from the WHO >bookshop for 15 Swiss francs which is about 13.50 USD > >http://www.who.int/bookorders/anglais/detart1.jsp?sesslan=1&codlan >=1&codcol=15&codcch=572 > > >Priyanthi Fernando >Executive Secretary, IFRTD >113-114Spitfire Studios, > 63-71 Collier Street >London N1 9BE. United Kingdom >Tel: +44 20 7713 6699 >Fax: +44 20 7713 8290 >Email: priyanthi.fernando@ifrtd.org OR ifrtd@ifrtd.org >Web: www.ifrtd.org > >IFRTD provides a framework for collaboration between individuals and >organisations interested in issues of access & mobility as they affect >the lives of rural people in developing countries. Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From mally at ieee.org Fri Apr 16 02:32:04 2004 From: mally at ieee.org (Jack Mallinckrodt) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:32:04 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Carsharing for third world cities? Your reactions invited In-Reply-To: <006c01c422b0$8e3b0e80$6501a8c0@home> References: <006c01c422b0$8e3b0e80$6501a8c0@home> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20040415101417.02d009a0@mail.comcast.net> Lee's thoughts, particularly his #2, seem to me to well define the issue. Seems to me to depend on which is your more fundamental goal: 1. To get cars off the road (the goal clearly implied by each of Lee's questions), or 2. To provide the infrastructure to enable a richer spectrum of individual choices and opportunity. Those two are, in my view, in almost direct opposition. For the vast majority of people, much as we might wish otherwise, there is no viable alternative to the personal automobile for maximizing mobility and choice. Jack ======================================= At 11:11 PM 4/14/04, Eric Britton / Lee Schipper wrote > * "Funny I have thought a lot about car sharing but I am worried it > moves people too fast into cars by giving them a cheaper buy-in." (And > then when I answered that I had to do some serious cogitating on this, he > quickly responded . . . ) > * "Well, if you go into rich countries and woo people who normally > would have almost instinctively owned cars, yes, there must be a results. > I suspect that Zip and the others in the yuppie parts of Washington DC do > that. But car sharing where there are no cars yet can serve as car > boosters, likewise among groups (like students in Europe) who don't yet > have cars. My fear is that by creating a mobile class even if they don't > OWN cars they can move into a car-friendly long-distances/low density > world earlier than otherwise > * "Also drivers licensees are expensive. By making the car cheap on a > part time bases the user has to make the investment in a licenses. After > that, who wants to only drive a few hours a week? Anyway some thoughts!" Jack www.urbantransport.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040415/6c0ecb4b/attachment.html From ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr Fri Apr 16 15:48:38 2004 From: ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr (ecoplan.adsl@wanadoo.fr) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:48:38 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Counter-thoughts on carsharing for Third World cities. Message-ID: <00a301c4237e$db87fb70$6501a8c0@home> Dear Friends, Just in case it might interest some of you, there is lively discussion of this in two of our discussion groups: http://newmobility.org and http://worldcarshare.com . Each of these has a low volume moderated discussion list associated with it that I believe makes a good companion source of contact with our wonderful SUSTRAN. The following note just in from Chris Bradshaw a long time actor in the Sustainable Mobility sphere is a good example of the level of thoughtfulness you will encounter there. Both programs and lists are of course free. Let me end with a few quick word on carsharing. A great deal of progress has been made in recent years in making real sense out of this concept, and today it is increasingly seen, understood and marketed as a strategic extension of the existing public transport/human transport range of services. Where things become interesting for this idea which of course is cutting its teeth in Europe and more recently in North America, is what happens to it when it begins to mesh into the very different transport contexts such as we have in Asia which are rich in two wheelers (for better or worse) and a wide range of "intermediate transport" means. I for one think that there is a broader pattern in all this, but first let's hear what you all have to say. Eric Britton -----Original Message----- From: Chris Bradshaw [mailto:chris@ties.ottawa.on.ca] Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 5:58 AM To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [WorldTransport Forum] Counter-thoughts on carsharing for Third World cities. Your views? Eric, Thanks for bringing this provocative question/point to our attention. This will bring to two the # of Canadians responding. Lee Schipper has raised a point that all new technologies face. By offering a new choice, from what existing choices will it draw most of its adherents? In the case of carsharing, this is very much the case, as we are claiming that car sharing is a small-footprint alternative to driving; while we all know that many people who join have not owned a car in many years. I find that we are good at attracting people who have "been there, done it, got the T-shirt" and are ready for 'car-access-lite.' There are people who _want_ to drive less and have organized their life (especially finding a good walkable community to live in, and eschewing the cottage life so popular in N. Am.) so that little driving is required. However, Schipper poses the question about how will carsharing be used by the great masses who are eager to get some car-access, somehow. Will we provide a more accessible "stepping stone"? I don't think so. First, our insurers don't allow people to learn to drive in carsharing clubs, and the minimum age also eliminates even those who get their license with the aid of the family car and want to avoid getting their own (and know all-too-well how informal car-sharing works). Second, we have found little interest from the poor. We find our members to have lower-than-average income, but above-average education background. These people find an owned car a dead weight around their ankles, and want relief. They also see driving, especially at rush hour, to be little more liberating than being an elephant in a parade holding the tail of the animal in front in their trunk. Third, we don't offer most of what the car -- as advertised -- offers. We only offer utilitarian driving access. Which car-manufacturers (or even other industry partners) advertise that? Rather they offer power, status, freedom, and a machine that communicates to others who they hell they are. Fourth, we add "noise" to the access, by requiring some planning and a walk on either end of the journey. We kill most of the spontaneity that constitutes a good share of 'freedom'. Fifth, while we offer little in the way of "image" (a flashy or powerful or well-appointed vehicle), we do offer the "reverse image" of utilitarianism, somewhat as the early VW beetles not-so-subtly mocked the standard car image of the 50's and 60's. And it is that reverse image that will specifically turn off the panting masses waiting to get their place on the ever-more-congested byways of their communities (even though carsharing offers the only real alternative to congestion be reducing the number of vehicles available to do the congesting). The last matter is whether someone who has joined carsharing to avoid car costs will later move to an owned car when their income situation improves. We find the people who resign to buy a car usually are facing changing personal circumstances beyond their control (a new job; getting married; tending to an elderly parent). Several have rejoined later. Chris Bradshaw, Vrtucar, Ottawa The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice Consult at: http://wTransport.org To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Yahoo! Groups Links . To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldTransport/ . To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com . Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040416/b1da75e1/attachment.html From Regina_Therese_MANZO at ura.gov.sg Mon Apr 19 18:02:25 2004 From: Regina_Therese_MANZO at ura.gov.sg (Regina_Therese_MANZO@ura.gov.sg) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:02:25 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Counter-thoughts on carsharing for Third World cities. Message-ID: To remark on the note below by Chris Bradshaw (forwarded by Eric Britton) from the World Transport Forum discussion list - Chris' comments comprise detailed information from the North American context, and are important for all interested in sustainable transport. And they form a cogent argument for why car-sharing will not increase un-sustainable transport in car-dominated societies. On the other hand, Lee Schipper's original comments are attuned to the issues in developing countries, and are accurate for that context. The issue is really the huge differences in context between car-dependent North America (or Europe or Australia) and the developing world. Just for an example, a fundamental difference is "image" which Chris refers to in his Fifth point. There is no such thing as a "reverse image" in the developing world - having access to a car is high prestige, period. So, the points Chris makes lead to an accurate conclusion for the North American context. We can't however assume a similar conclusion in the developing world. My feeling, akin to Lee Schipper's, is that car-sharing would increase motorization in developing world cities, where sheer volumes of people to be moved combined with sheer lack of road space (not to mention hosts of social and health issues) mean even small increases in the use of cars have significant ramifications on environment/equity/health.... Best regards, Gina Manzo Regina Manzo, AICP „X Urban Redevelopment Authority „X 45 Maxwell Road „X URA Centre „X Singapore 069118 „X? ph +65 6321-8305 „X Privileged / Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error.? http://www.ura.gov.sg Sent by: sustran-discuss-bounces+regina_therese_manzo=ura.gov.sg@list.jca.apc.org 16/04/2004 14:48 Please respond to Eric.Britton; Please respond to Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport To: "'Sustran-Discuss@Jca. Ax. Apc. Org'" cc: Subject: [sustran] Counter-thoughts on carsharing for Third World cities. Dear Friends, Just in case it might interest some of you, there is lively discussion of this in two of our discussion groups: http://newmobility.org and http://worldcarshare.com. Each of these has a low volume moderated discussion list associated with it that I believe makes a good companion source of contact with our wonderful SUSTRAN. The following note just in from Chris Bradshaw a long time actor in the Sustainable Mobility sphere is a good example of the level of thoughtfulness you will encounter there. Both programs and lists are of course free. Let me end with a few quick word on carsharing. A great deal of progress has been made in recent years in making real sense out of this concept, and today it is increasingly seen, understood and marketed as a strategic extension of the existing public transport/human transport range of services. Where things become interesting for this idea which of course is cutting its teeth in Europe and more recently in North America, is what happens to it when it begins to mesh into the very different transport contexts such as we have in Asia which are rich in two wheelers (for better or worse) and a wide range of ¡§intermediate transport¡¨ means. I for one think that there is a broader pattern in all this, but first let¡¦s hear what you all have to say. Eric Britton -----Original Message----- From: Chris Bradshaw [mailto:chris@ties.ottawa.on.ca] Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 5:58 AM To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [WorldTransport Forum] Counter-thoughts on carsharing for Third World cities. Your views? Eric, Thanks for bringing this provocative question/point to our attention. This will bring to two the # of Canadians responding. Lee Schipper has raised a point that all new technologies face. By offering a new choice, from what existing choices will it draw most of its adherents? In the case of carsharing, this is very much the case, as we are claiming that car sharing is a small-footprint alternative to driving; while we all know that many people who join have not owned a car in many years. I find that we are good at attracting people who have "been there, done it, got the T-shirt" and are ready for 'car-access-lite.' There are people who _want_ to drive less and have organized their life (especially finding a good walkable community to live in, and eschewing the cottage life so popular in N. Am.) so that little driving is required. However, Schipper poses the question about how will carsharing be used by the great masses who are eager to get some car-access, somehow. Will we provide a more accessible "stepping stone"? I don't think so. First, our insurers don't allow people to learn to drive in carsharing clubs, and the minimum age also eliminates even those who get their license with the aid of the family car and want to avoid getting their own (and know all-too-well how informal car-sharing works). Second, we have found little interest from the poor. We find our members to have lower-than-average income, but above-average education background. These people find an owned car a dead weight around their ankles, and want relief. They also see driving, especially at rush hour, to be little more liberating than being an elephant in a parade holding the tail of the animal in front in their trunk. Third, we don't offer most of what the car -- as advertised -- offers. We only offer utilitarian driving access. Which car-manufacturers (or even other industry partners) advertise that? Rather they offer power, status, freedom, and a machine that communicates to others who they hell they are. Fourth, we add "noise" to the access, by requiring some planning and a walk on either end of the journey. We kill most of the spontaneity that constitutes a good share of 'freedom'. Fifth, while we offer little in the way of "image" (a flashy or powerful or well-appointed vehicle), we do offer the "reverse image" of utilitarianism, somewhat as the early VW beetles not-so-subtly mocked the standard car image of the 50's and 60's. And it is that reverse image that will specifically turn off the panting masses waiting to get their place on the ever-more-congested byways of their communities (even though carsharing offers the only real alternative to congestion be reducing the number of vehicles available to do the congesting). The last matter is whether someone who has joined carsharing to avoid car costs will later move to an owned car when their income situation improves. We find the people who resign to buy a car usually are facing changing personal circumstances beyond their control (a new job; getting married; tending to an elderly parent). Several have rejoined later. Chris Bradshaw, Vrtucar, Ottawa The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice Consult at: http://wTransport.org To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040419/f24546bb/attachment.html From ktsourl at mailbox.gr Mon Apr 19 20:45:06 2004 From: ktsourl at mailbox.gr (K. Tsourlakis) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:45:06 +0300 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention Message-ID: <200404191145.OAA26204@mailbox.gr> At 05:59 ðì 15/4/2004 +0300, you wrote: >..................................... >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we had >a considered discussion on road safety. It would seem to me that >road traffic injuries are correlated with the increase in high >speed road networks and increased motorisation. The 'vulnerable >road users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps >other non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but >perhaps also the least likely to benefit from motorisation and >highways. So, from the perspective of reducing vulnerability of >poor people, do we not also need a road traffic injury prevention >strategy that questions the dominant paradigm of high speed >motorisation? >..................................... Motorcyclists are NOT non-motorised transport users. Bunching up motorcyclists next to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised transport users is a HUGE logical and methodological mistake. And motorcyclists DO benefit from motorisation and highways. Especially benefited are the larger ones, bought (at least to some extent) always as entertainment toys (e.g. the only use of 70HP, 80HP, 100HP - or even more - motorcycle power is to break speed limits) - but smaller ones have certainly their share too. Actually motorcycles pollute like cars do (even electrical ones pollute indirectly), are noisy (usually more than cars), kill pedestrians and their users (at a rate 10-40 times more frequently than cars do) and are not usable (not even as mere passengers like cars are) from a large part of the population (the most vulnerable one: babies, visually and kinetically impaired, elderlies etc). Overuse of cars has certainly destroyed world cities and brought about many problems - it is trivial and needless to mention them on a list like this one. However there may exist a place even for them in an ideal and rationally designed transport system - e.g. in sparsely populated areas, for the transport of people on special needs, or under some particular forms like the controversial caresharing scheme. But what advantage would motorcycle present over bicycle use, combined with proper mass transport (bike racks, train facilites for bikes etc) for longer distances? Has anybody ever thought if the total ban of motorcycle were a better solution to the vulnerability and the rest of the problems they present? In Greece motorcycle use has contributed (perhaps more than cars) to the oppression of pedestrians, the miserable situation of the public spaces of the city and the environmental and healthy problems (you may take a look at http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm ). Because of the deliberate encouragement of motorcycle use through a number of privileges (the last one is the right to use legally dedicated bus lanes) their number proliferated (in Athens their number is estimated to 1 mil - compared to 2 mil. of cars) while they are used only by a small (but mostly fanatical and politically influential) part of the population and contribute according to studies less than 8% to the total mobility. I am sure there are similar "horror stories" about motorcycles from Asia cities. Anybody to speak up? _____________________________________________________________________________________ http://www.mailbox.gr ÁðïêôÞóôå äùñåÜí ôï ìïíáäéêü óáò e-mail. http://www.thesuperweb.gr Website ìå ÁóöáëÝò Controlpanel áðü 6 Euro êáé äþñï ôï domain óáò! From ericbruun at earthlink.net Tue Apr 20 09:00:33 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:00:33 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycles in WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention References: <200404191145.OAA26204@mailbox.gr> Message-ID: <006c01c4266a$85143760$aafc45cf@earthlink.net> I certainly have to agree that there are too many aggressive motorcyclists in Athens and far too many large, semi-legal street racers without proper mufflers. I also agree that most current motorcycles pollute too much, as they don't use the latest technology. However, a total ban is ridiculous. Some things to consider. First, they need far less parking space, one of the reasons for their popularity. Second, they are far more fuel efficient than all but the smallest autos, unless these autos operate full, which they almost never do. Third, small motorcycles get run over by cars in the developing countries in large numbers. And the people riding them are not in the same income class as those who own the cars. But here is one of my main points. Yes, there are too many motorcycles on the road in some places, especially in southeast Asia. But, lets look at why. They have fast growing economies and work sites that are increasingly far away. Yet these countries have substandard public transportation, as governments (and the World Bank) have prioritized auto facilities instead. What would you do if you could save enough money to buy a motorcycle? Blame a lot of the problem on pro-auto policies. The other main point is to consider the alternative. Would you rather have merchants and couriers shipping their goods around on space-conserving, low-polluting, well-muffled, and energy-conserving smaller motorcycles, or in cars and trucks? Motorcycles can have their place if public policy is sensible. To the extent they displace pedestrians, bicycles, or buses, motorcycles will be bad. To the extent they displace autos and trucks, they will be good. We have a similar discussion in the US. The Segway company has a slick propaganda campaign saying how these motorized vehicles will displace cars on short trips. I am skeptical. What they will probably do is displace pedestrian and bicycle trips while promoting obesity, electricity consumption, and broken toes. Yet, if they can actually be put in role where they genuinely reduce auto or truck traffic, I will support them. Eric Bruun ----- Original Message ----- From: "K. Tsourlakis" To: Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:45 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention > > At 05:59 ?? 15/4/2004 +0300, you wrote: > > >..................................... > >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we had > >a considered discussion on road safety. It would seem to me that > >road traffic injuries are correlated with the increase in high > >speed road networks and increased motorisation. The 'vulnerable > >road users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps > >other non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but > >perhaps also the least likely to benefit from motorisation and > >highways. So, from the perspective of reducing vulnerability of > >poor people, do we not also need a road traffic injury prevention > >strategy that questions the dominant paradigm of high speed > >motorisation? > >..................................... > > > Motorcyclists are NOT non-motorised transport users. Bunching up motorcyclists next to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised transport users is a HUGE logical and methodological mistake. And motorcyclists DO benefit from motorisation and highways. Especially benefited are the larger ones, bought (at least to some extent) always as entertainment toys (e.g. the only use of 70HP, 80HP, 100HP - or even more - motorcycle power is to break speed limits) - but smaller ones have certainly their share too. > > Actually motorcycles pollute like cars do (even electrical ones pollute indirectly), are noisy (usually more than cars), kill pedestrians and their users (at a rate 10-40 times more frequently than cars do) and are not usable (not even as mere passengers like cars are) from a large part of the population (the most vulnerable one: babies, visually and kinetically impaired, elderlies etc). > > Overuse of cars has certainly destroyed world cities and brought about many problems - it is trivial and needless to mention them on a list like this one. However there may exist a place even for them in an ideal and rationally designed transport system - e.g. in sparsely populated areas, for the transport of people on special needs, or under some particular forms like the controversial caresharing scheme. But what advantage would motorcycle present over bicycle use, combined with proper mass transport (bike racks, train facilites for bikes etc) for longer distances? Has anybody ever thought if the total ban of motorcycle were a better solution to the vulnerability and the rest of the problems they present? > > In Greece motorcycle use has contributed (perhaps more than cars) to the oppression of pedestrians, the miserable situation of the public spaces of the city and the environmental and healthy problems (you may take a look at http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm ). Because of the deliberate encouragement of motorcycle use through a number of privileges (the last one is the right to use legally dedicated bus lanes) their number proliferated (in Athens their number is estimated to 1 mil - compared to 2 mil. of cars) while they are used only by a small (but mostly fanatical and politically influential) part of the population and contribute according to studies less than 8% to the total mobility. I am sure there are similar "horror stories" about motorcycles from Asia cities. Anybody to speak up? > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ _________ > http://www.mailbox.gr ????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? e-mail. > http://www.thesuperweb.gr Website ?? ??????? Controlpanel ??? 6 Euro ??? ???? ?? domain ???! From ktsou at tee.gr Tue Apr 20 04:51:55 2004 From: ktsou at tee.gr (K Tsourlakis) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:51:55 +0300 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention In-Reply-To: <200404151618.TAA20732@mailbox.gr> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20040419224827.021d8790@teeserver.tee.gr> At 07:18 ?? 15/4/2004 +0300, you wrote: >..................................... >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we had >a considered discussion on road safety. It would seem to me that >road traffic injuries are correlated with the increase in high >speed road networks and increased motorisation. The 'vulnerable >road users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps >other non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but >perhaps also the least likely to benefit from motorisation and >highways. So, from the perspective of reducing vulnerability of >poor people, do we not also need a road traffic injury prevention >strategy that questions the dominant paradigm of high speed >motorisation? >..................................... Motorcyclists are NOT non-motorised transport users. Bunching up motorcyclists next to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised transport users is a HUGE logical and methodological mistake. And motorcyclists DO benefit from motorisation and highways. Especially benefited are the larger ones, bought (at least to some extent) always as entertainment toys (e.g. the only use of 70HP, 80HP, 100HP - or even more - motorcycle power is to break speed limits) - but smaller ones have certainly their share too. Actually motorcycles pollute like cars do (even electrical ones pollute indirectly), are noisy (usually more than cars), kill pedestrians and their users (at a rate 10-40 times more frequently than cars do) and are not usable (not even as mere passengers like cars are) from a large part of the population (the most vulnerable one: babies, visually and kinetically impaired, elderlies etc). Overuse of cars has certainly destroyed world cities and brought about many problems - it is trivial and needless to mention them on a list like this one. However there may exist a place even for them in an ideal and rationally designed transport system - e.g. in sparsely populated areas, for the transport of people on special needs, or under some particular forms like the controversial caresharing scheme. But what advantage would motorcycle present over bicycle use, combined with proper mass transport (bike racks, train facilites for bikes etc) for longer distances? Has anybody ever thought if the total ban of motorcycle were a better solution to the vulnerability and the rest of the problems they present? In Greece motorcycle use has contributed (perhaps more than cars) to the oppression of pedestrians, the miserable situation of the public spaces of the city and the environmental and healthy problems (you may take a look at http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm ). Because of the deliberate encouragement of motorcycle use through a number of privileges (the last one is the right to use legally dedicated bus lanes) their number proliferated (in Athens their number is estimated to 1 mil - compared to 2 mil. of cars) while they are used only by a small (but mostly fanatical and politically influential) part of the population and contribute according to studies less than 8% to the total mobility. I am sure there are similar "horror stories" about motorcycles from Asia cities. Anybody to speak up? From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Tue Apr 20 12:51:42 2004 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Barter, Paul) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:51:42 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Will the REAL sustran-discuss list please stand up Message-ID: <42F08B8662756D428F2811F53C6A93F5C2C8B3@MBXSRV04.stf.nus.edu.sg> Dear sustran-discussers I notice that 88 people are getting the sustran-discuss list via yahoogroups (formerly egroups). This is not a problem if you want to just read the list. But if you ever want to post a message to sustran-discuss then you will need to join the REAL list which is hosted by JCA networks. The yahoogroups version is just a mirror, not the real thing. So I would urge you all to please join the real sustran-discuss list!! To do so please visit http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss and follow the instructions there. You may also like to leave the yahoogroups version in order to avoid getting each sustran-discuss message twice. Good luck! Paul Dr Paul A. Barter Public Policy Programme, National University of Singapore 5 Arts Link, Singapore 117570 Tel: +65-6874 3324; Fax: +65-6778 1020 Email: paulbarter@nus.edu.sg Are you interested in urban transport in developing countries? Then consider joining the SUSTRAN-DISCUSS list, an email discussion and announcements list devoted to people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries.Visit http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/ for more information. From caj24 at cornell.edu Tue Apr 20 14:28:18 2004 From: caj24 at cornell.edu (Craig August Johnson) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:28:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [sustran] Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam In-Reply-To: <006c01c4266a$85143760$aafc45cf@earthlink.net> References: <200404191145.OAA26204@mailbox.gr> <006c01c4266a$85143760$aafc45cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1109.128.253.41.107.1082438898.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> In terms of motorcycle use in Southeast Asia, I think there are examples of how motorbikes have provided a viable alternative to an auto-based urban transportation system. In Vietnam, while the high rate of motorcycle usage (60% of traffic is on motorbikes) has displaced pedestrians from the streets. High numbers of motorbikes have been able to coexist quite well with high usage of bikes (30% of traffic is on bicycles). This has contributed to a dynamic high energy street life that is quite different than a more pedestrian-centered street life, but still viable. Sure there are a greater number of collisions between motorbikes-pedestrians-bicycles, but these collisions are usually not fatal, and are rarely treated as accidents. Most of the road fatalities in Vietnam happen on highways and not in the cities. Given the speed and the scope of motorization in Vietnam, the negative impacts of motorization that one acutely experience in America such as sprawl, smog, congestion, and the social inequality arising from inadequate public mass transportation are not found in Vietnamese cities for the following reasons: 1. Motorcycles pollute far less than cars- especially four stroke engine motorcycles. An 80cc four-stroke engine scooter can get 85-90 miles per gallon much better than a typical car at around 30 mpg. Also, there are many viable electric scooters on the market that are zero emissions. 2. Parking is not a big issue for motorcycles. Vietnamese cities are incredibly dense, thus allowing cities to become quite dense and still relatively uncongested given the high density. 3. While riding a motorbike, one has much greater connection to the surrounding street. One is not able to control the personal environment like in a car, so the importance of street life and streetscape are not lost by the increase in motorbikes. 4. Motorcycles are cheaper than cars making motorbikes a more equitable form of individual motorized transportation. In Vietnam, the price of a car is 15x the price of a motorbike. As a result Vietnam has a rate of around 300 motor vehicles/1000 people. This is on par with many industrialized European countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands. Motorbikes have given all the benefits of owning private vehicle such as personal mobility, speed, and no wait time while still being quite affordable. 5. Motorbikes do not take up as much space on the road. In Hanoi there is less than .17 km of auto-accessible road length per 1000 residents. This compares drastically to New York which is 9.97km and Singapore which is .98km per 1000 residents. Indeed, Vietnamese cities have been able to economically develop at great speed, partly because the cities have not had to build an auto-based road infrastructure. Now, though Vietnam is building the road infrastructure with funding from World Bank and JBIC, and the increase in cars that is now occurring in Vietnam will contribute much more to traffic fatalities/congestion/pollution/sprawl/and social inequality than motorbikes. Like Eric said, the pro-auto policies are having a much more detrimental effect than the huge increase in motorbikes. Craig Johnson Much of the statistics quoted were from both a JICA transportation study in Hanoi, augmented with personal data collected this last summer > > I certainly have to agree that there are too many aggressive motorcyclists > in Athens and far too many large, semi-legal street racers without proper > mufflers. I also agree that most current motorcycles pollute too much, as > they don't use the latest technology. > > However, a total ban is ridiculous. Some things to consider. First, they > need far less parking space, one of the reasons for their popularity. > Second, they are far more fuel efficient than all but the smallest autos, > unless these autos operate full, which they almost never do. Third, small > motorcycles get run over by cars in the developing countries in large > numbers. And the people riding them are not in the same income class as > those who own the cars. > > But here is one of my main points. Yes, there are too many motorcycles on > the road in some places, especially in southeast Asia. But, lets look at > why. They have fast growing economies and work sites that are increasingly > far away. Yet these countries have substandard public transportation, as > governments (and the World Bank) have prioritized auto facilities instead. > What would you do if you could save enough money to buy a motorcycle? > Blame > a lot of the problem on pro-auto policies. > > The other main point is to consider the alternative. Would you rather have > merchants and couriers shipping their goods around on space-conserving, > low-polluting, well-muffled, and energy-conserving smaller motorcycles, or > in cars and trucks? Motorcycles can have their place if public policy is > sensible. To the extent they displace pedestrians, bicycles, or buses, > motorcycles will be bad. To the extent they displace autos and trucks, > they > will be good. > > We have a similar discussion in the US. The Segway company has a slick > propaganda campaign saying how these motorized vehicles will displace cars > on short trips. I am skeptical. What they will probably do is displace > pedestrian and bicycle trips while promoting obesity, electricity > consumption, and broken toes. Yet, if they can actually be put in role > where > they genuinely reduce auto or truck traffic, I will support them. > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "K. Tsourlakis" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:45 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention > > >> >> At 05:59 ?? 15/4/2004 +0300, you wrote: >> >> >..................................... >> >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we had >> >a considered discussion on road safety. It would seem to me that >> >road traffic injuries are correlated with the increase in high >> >speed road networks and increased motorisation. The 'vulnerable >> >road users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps >> >other non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but >> >perhaps also the least likely to benefit from motorisation and >> >highways. So, from the perspective of reducing vulnerability of >> >poor people, do we not also need a road traffic injury prevention >> >strategy that questions the dominant paradigm of high speed >> >motorisation? >> >..................................... >> >> >> Motorcyclists are NOT non-motorised transport users. Bunching up > motorcyclists next to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised > transport users is a HUGE logical and methodological mistake. And > motorcyclists DO benefit from motorisation and highways. Especially > benefited are the larger ones, bought (at least to some extent) always as > entertainment toys (e.g. the only use of 70HP, 80HP, 100HP - or even more > - > motorcycle power is to break speed limits) - but smaller ones have > certainly > their share too. >> >> Actually motorcycles pollute like cars do (even electrical ones pollute > indirectly), are noisy (usually more than cars), kill pedestrians and > their > users (at a rate 10-40 times more frequently than cars do) and are not > usable (not even as mere passengers like cars are) from a large part of > the > population (the most vulnerable one: babies, visually and kinetically > impaired, elderlies etc). >> >> Overuse of cars has certainly destroyed world cities and brought about > many problems - it is trivial and needless to mention them on a list like > this one. However there may exist a place even for them in an ideal and > rationally designed transport system - e.g. in sparsely populated areas, > for > the transport of people on special needs, or under some particular forms > like the controversial caresharing scheme. But what advantage would > motorcycle present over bicycle use, combined with proper mass transport > (bike racks, train facilites for bikes etc) for longer distances? Has > anybody ever thought if the total ban of motorcycle were a better solution > to the vulnerability and the rest of the problems they present? >> >> In Greece motorcycle use has contributed (perhaps more than cars) to the > oppression of pedestrians, the miserable situation of the public spaces of > the city and the environmental and healthy problems (you may take a look > at > http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm ). Because of the deliberate > encouragement of motorcycle use through a number of privileges (the last > one > is the right to use legally dedicated bus lanes) their number proliferated > (in Athens their number is estimated to 1 mil - compared to 2 mil. of > cars) > while they are used only by a small (but mostly fanatical and politically > influential) part of the population and contribute according to studies > less > than 8% to the total mobility. I am sure there are similar "horror > stories" > about motorcycles from Asia cities. Anybody to speak up? >> >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________________________ > _________ >> http://www.mailbox.gr ????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? e-mail. >> http://www.thesuperweb.gr Website ?? ??????? Controlpanel ??? 6 Euro ??? > ???? ?? domain ???! > > From karl at dnet.net.id Tue Apr 20 20:05:24 2004 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:05:24 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam In-Reply-To: <1109.128.253.41.107.1082438898.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> Message-ID: <20040420110721.6AA842BCC4@list.jca.apc.org> Dear all, I don?t know the stats on this and I've never studied it in any detail, but would like to query some of the observations made below...: - in my view motorcycles in Southease Asia are not an 'altnernative' to car-based systems but rather a uniquely SE Asian precursor. They are in this sense at best a temporary alternative to car based systems, not a real, 'viable alternative' as suggested below. People are 'graduating' to cars as incomes rise. You can see this clearly in cities like Bangkok where incomes are higher and there is a transition from mcs to cars. - motorcycles are in many senses the natural enemies of public transport. It's no coincidence that Denpasar & Ho Chi Minh have less than 5% mode share of motorised trips by bus. This in itself is fine and is probably highly efficient as explained below, as an average m/c trip is in the order of 10 times cheaper than a public transport trip. But what about the future? A generation is growing up using personal motor vehicles. - Does anyone have figures? My anecdotal observations suggest bicycles are being literally shoved aside by motorcycles in Vietnamese cities, at an alarming rate. I was in HCM for a week and personally witnessed 3 crashes where cyclists had been sideswiped by mcs, and fell. The statement that high nos. of mc's 'co-exist quite well' with high nos of bicycles certainly doesn't match my observations in HCM. The fact that both are present doesn't mean they are necessarily co-existing well. What are the trends? - Likewise for pedestrians, there are mcs parked all over the walkways and pedestrians often have to walk in the street as a result. As to the statement that a total ban is 'ridiculous' (below)... I agree that on traffic management grounds it would be untenable. But like it or not some cities are doing it. Guangzhou - which has 1.5 million mcs constituting 20% fo trips in 2002 - is seriously planning a city-wide ban (extending to the 8 urban districts of 1,400 sq km) on motorcycles and has already banned mcs from the Ersha Island area. For more than a year now they have not been registering any new motorcycles. One of the main concerns they cited there is what they considered to be the relatively high association of mcs with crime. regards, Karl Fjellstrom -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Craig August Johnson Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 12:28 PM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Cc: a3b14@yahoogroups.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam In terms of motorcycle use in Southeast Asia, I think there are examples of how motorbikes have provided a viable alternative to an auto-based urban transportation system. In Vietnam, while the high rate of motorcycle usage (60% of traffic is on motorbikes) has displaced pedestrians from the streets. High numbers of motorbikes have been able to coexist quite well with high usage of bikes (30% of traffic is on bicycles). This has contributed to a dynamic high energy street life that is quite different than a more pedestrian-centered street life, but still viable. Sure there are a greater number of collisions between motorbikes-pedestrians-bicycles, but these collisions are usually not fatal, and are rarely treated as accidents. Most of the road fatalities in Vietnam happen on highways and not in the cities. Given the speed and the scope of motorization in Vietnam, the negative impacts of motorization that one acutely experience in America such as sprawl, smog, congestion, and the social inequality arising from inadequate public mass transportation are not found in Vietnamese cities for the following reasons: 1. Motorcycles pollute far less than cars- especially four stroke engine motorcycles. An 80cc four-stroke engine scooter can get 85-90 miles per gallon much better than a typical car at around 30 mpg. Also, there are many viable electric scooters on the market that are zero emissions. 2. Parking is not a big issue for motorcycles. Vietnamese cities are incredibly dense, thus allowing cities to become quite dense and still relatively uncongested given the high density. 3. While riding a motorbike, one has much greater connection to the surrounding street. One is not able to control the personal environment like in a car, so the importance of street life and streetscape are not lost by the increase in motorbikes. 4. Motorcycles are cheaper than cars making motorbikes a more equitable form of individual motorized transportation. In Vietnam, the price of a car is 15x the price of a motorbike. As a result Vietnam has a rate of around 300 motor vehicles/1000 people. This is on par with many industrialized European countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands. Motorbikes have given all the benefits of owning private vehicle such as personal mobility, speed, and no wait time while still being quite affordable. 5. Motorbikes do not take up as much space on the road. In Hanoi there is less than .17 km of auto-accessible road length per 1000 residents. This compares drastically to New York which is 9.97km and Singapore which is .98km per 1000 residents. Indeed, Vietnamese cities have been able to economically develop at great speed, partly because the cities have not had to build an auto-based road infrastructure. Now, though Vietnam is building the road infrastructure with funding from World Bank and JBIC, and the increase in cars that is now occurring in Vietnam will contribute much more to traffic fatalities/congestion/pollution/sprawl/and social inequality than motorbikes. Like Eric said, the pro-auto policies are having a much more detrimental effect than the huge increase in motorbikes. Craig Johnson Much of the statistics quoted were from both a JICA transportation study in Hanoi, augmented with personal data collected this last summer > > I certainly have to agree that there are too many aggressive > motorcyclists in Athens and far too many large, semi-legal street > racers without proper mufflers. I also agree that most current > motorcycles pollute too much, as they don't use the latest technology. > > However, a total ban is ridiculous. Some things to consider. First, > they need far less parking space, one of the reasons for their popularity. > Second, they are far more fuel efficient than all but the smallest > autos, unless these autos operate full, which they almost never do. > Third, small motorcycles get run over by cars in the developing > countries in large numbers. And the people riding them are not in the > same income class as those who own the cars. > > But here is one of my main points. Yes, there are too many motorcycles > on the road in some places, especially in southeast Asia. But, lets > look at why. They have fast growing economies and work sites that are > increasingly far away. Yet these countries have substandard public > transportation, as governments (and the World Bank) have prioritized auto facilities instead. > What would you do if you could save enough money to buy a motorcycle? > Blame > a lot of the problem on pro-auto policies. > > The other main point is to consider the alternative. Would you rather > have merchants and couriers shipping their goods around on > space-conserving, low-polluting, well-muffled, and energy-conserving > smaller motorcycles, or in cars and trucks? Motorcycles can have > their place if public policy is sensible. To the extent they displace > pedestrians, bicycles, or buses, motorcycles will be bad. To the > extent they displace autos and trucks, they will be good. > > We have a similar discussion in the US. The Segway company has a slick > propaganda campaign saying how these motorized vehicles will displace > cars on short trips. I am skeptical. What they will probably do is > displace pedestrian and bicycle trips while promoting obesity, > electricity consumption, and broken toes. Yet, if they can actually be > put in role where they genuinely reduce auto or truck traffic, I will > support them. > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "K. Tsourlakis" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:45 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury > Prevention > > >> >> At 05:59 ?? 15/4/2004 +0300, you wrote: >> >> >..................................... >> >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we had >> >a considered discussion on road safety. It would seem to me that >> >road traffic injuries are correlated with the increase in high >> >speed road networks and increased motorisation. The 'vulnerable >> >road users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps >> >other non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but >> >perhaps also the least likely to benefit from motorisation and >> >highways. So, from the perspective of reducing vulnerability of poor >> >people, do we not also need a road traffic injury prevention >> >strategy that questions the dominant paradigm of high speed >> >motorisation? >> >..................................... >> >> >> Motorcyclists are NOT non-motorised transport users. Bunching up > motorcyclists next to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised > transport users is a HUGE logical and methodological mistake. And > motorcyclists DO benefit from motorisation and highways. Especially > benefited are the larger ones, bought (at least to some extent) always > as entertainment toys (e.g. the only use of 70HP, 80HP, 100HP - or > even more > - > motorcycle power is to break speed limits) - but smaller ones have > certainly their share too. >> >> Actually motorcycles pollute like cars do (even electrical ones >> pollute > indirectly), are noisy (usually more than cars), kill pedestrians and > their users (at a rate 10-40 times more frequently than cars do) and > are not usable (not even as mere passengers like cars are) from a > large part of the population (the most vulnerable one: babies, > visually and kinetically impaired, elderlies etc). >> >> Overuse of cars has certainly destroyed world cities and brought >> about > many problems - it is trivial and needless to mention them on a list > like this one. However there may exist a place even for them in an > ideal and rationally designed transport system - e.g. in sparsely > populated areas, for the transport of people on special needs, or > under some particular forms like the controversial caresharing scheme. > But what advantage would motorcycle present over bicycle use, combined > with proper mass transport (bike racks, train facilites for bikes etc) > for longer distances? Has anybody ever thought if the total ban of > motorcycle were a better solution to the vulnerability and the rest of > the problems they present? >> >> In Greece motorcycle use has contributed (perhaps more than cars) to >> the > oppression of pedestrians, the miserable situation of the public > spaces of the city and the environmental and healthy problems (you may > take a look at http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm ). Because of the > deliberate encouragement of motorcycle use through a number of > privileges (the last one is the right to use legally dedicated bus > lanes) their number proliferated (in Athens their number is estimated > to 1 mil - compared to 2 mil. of > cars) > while they are used only by a small (but mostly fanatical and > politically > influential) part of the population and contribute according to > studies less than 8% to the total mobility. I am sure there are > similar "horror stories" > about motorcycles from Asia cities. Anybody to speak up? >> >> >> >> >> > ______________________________________________________________________ > ______ > _________ >> http://www.mailbox.gr ????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? e-mail. >> http://www.thesuperweb.gr Website ?? ??????? Controlpanel ??? 6 Euro >> ??? > ???? ?? domain ???! > > From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Wed Apr 21 04:58:26 2004 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 03:58:26 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam In-Reply-To: <20040420110721.6AA842BCC4@list.jca.apc.org> References: <20040420110721.6AA842BCC4@list.jca.apc.org> Message-ID: <1082491106.408580e261625@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> I agree completely with Karl's points, and having also visited Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) briefly last month, I wanted to add some observations, which I would be happy to hear your thoughts on. -One difference between HCMC and some other Southeast Asian cities (particularly Bangkok, KL, Manila, Jakarta) is that some of the massive trunk road capacity (ie. mainly expressways) that has been built in those other cities has not been built in HCMC. This will hopefully not change as high speed expressways make cars attractive in urban environments that would otherwise not be suitable. The World Bank had (has?) a project in HCMC to increase traffic flows (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1999/06/03/ 000009265_3980901130124/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf), but has not (yet?) provided loans for expressways or trunk roads. -Not just "enemies": motorcycles seem to be filling a void in the transport system when public transport is absent and incomes are rising. I have heard that motorcycles are now taking off in some African cities, suggesting that there may be more universal forces at work. Also, it is worth pointing out that Taipei, in Northeast Asia, has also been dominated by motorcycles, although this appears to be changing as high quality rapid transit (rail and bus which are being integrated) is being built. -There may be some good news - a few years ago there was just one public bus route in HCMC but last month I saw many more routes and I was told by a planner that services have begun expanding rapidly. If anyone has information on this, I would be interested in hearing it. Best regards, Craig Townsend Quoting Karl Fjellstrom : > Dear all, > > I don?t know the stats on this and I've never studied it in any detail, but > would like to query some of the observations made below...: > - in my view motorcycles in Southease Asia are not an 'altnernative' to > car-based systems but rather a uniquely SE Asian precursor. They are in this > sense at best a temporary alternative to car based systems, not a real, > 'viable alternative' as suggested below. People are 'graduating' to cars as > incomes rise. You can see this clearly in cities like Bangkok where incomes > are higher and there is a transition from mcs to cars. > - motorcycles are in many senses the natural enemies of public transport. > It's no coincidence that Denpasar & Ho Chi Minh have less than 5% mode share > of motorised trips by bus. This in itself is fine and is probably highly > efficient as explained below, as an average m/c trip is in the order of 10 > times cheaper than a public transport trip. But what about the future? A > generation is growing up using personal motor vehicles. > - Does anyone have figures? My anecdotal observations suggest bicycles are > being literally shoved aside by motorcycles in Vietnamese cities, at an > alarming rate. I was in HCM for a week and personally witnessed 3 crashes > where cyclists had been sideswiped by mcs, and fell. The statement that high > nos. of mc's 'co-exist quite well' with high nos of bicycles certainly > doesn't match my observations in HCM. The fact that both are present doesn't > mean they are necessarily co-existing well. What are the trends? > - Likewise for pedestrians, there are mcs parked all over the walkways and > pedestrians often have to walk in the street as a result. > > As to the statement that a total ban is 'ridiculous' (below)... I agree that > on traffic management grounds it would be untenable. But like it or not some > cities are doing it. Guangzhou - which has 1.5 million mcs constituting 20% > fo trips in 2002 - is seriously planning a city-wide ban (extending to the 8 > urban districts of 1,400 sq km) on motorcycles and has already banned mcs > from the Ersha Island area. For more than a year now they have not been > registering any new motorcycles. One of the main concerns they cited there > is what they considered to be the relatively high association of mcs with > crime. > > regards, Karl Fjellstrom > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf > Of Craig August Johnson > Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 12:28 PM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Cc: a3b14@yahoogroups.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam > > In terms of motorcycle use in Southeast Asia, I think there are examples of > how motorbikes have provided a viable alternative to an auto-based urban > transportation system. In Vietnam, while the high rate of motorcycle usage > (60% of traffic is on motorbikes) has displaced pedestrians from the > streets. High numbers of motorbikes have been able to coexist quite well > with high usage of bikes (30% of traffic is on bicycles). This has > contributed to a dynamic high energy street life that is quite different > than a more pedestrian-centered street life, but still viable. Sure there > are a greater number of collisions between motorbikes-pedestrians-bicycles, > but these collisions are usually not fatal, and are rarely treated as > accidents. Most of the road fatalities in Vietnam happen on highways and not > in the cities. > > Given the speed and the scope of motorization in Vietnam, the negative > impacts of motorization that one acutely experience in America such as > sprawl, smog, congestion, and the social inequality arising from inadequate > public mass transportation are not found in Vietnamese cities for the > following reasons: > > 1. Motorcycles pollute far less than cars- especially four stroke engine > motorcycles. An 80cc four-stroke engine scooter can get 85-90 miles per > gallon much better than a typical car at around 30 mpg. Also, there are many > viable electric scooters on the market that are zero emissions. > > 2. Parking is not a big issue for motorcycles. Vietnamese cities are > incredibly dense, thus allowing cities to become quite dense and still > relatively uncongested given the high density. > > 3. While riding a motorbike, one has much greater connection to the > surrounding street. One is not able to control the personal environment like > in a car, so the importance of street life and streetscape are not lost by > the increase in motorbikes. > > 4. Motorcycles are cheaper than cars making motorbikes a more equitable form > of individual motorized transportation. In Vietnam, the price of a car is > 15x the price of a motorbike. As a result Vietnam has a rate of around 300 > motor vehicles/1000 people. This is on par with many industrialized European > countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands. > Motorbikes have given all the benefits of owning private vehicle such as > personal mobility, speed, and no wait time while still being quite > affordable. > > 5. Motorbikes do not take up as much space on the road. In Hanoi there is > less than .17 km of auto-accessible road length per 1000 residents. This > compares drastically to New York which is 9.97km and Singapore which is > .98km per 1000 residents. > > Indeed, Vietnamese cities have been able to economically develop at great > speed, partly because the cities have not had to build an auto-based road > infrastructure. Now, though Vietnam is building the road infrastructure with > funding from World Bank and JBIC, and the increase in cars that is now > occurring in Vietnam will contribute much more to traffic > fatalities/congestion/pollution/sprawl/and social inequality than > motorbikes. Like Eric said, the pro-auto policies are having a much more > detrimental effect than the huge increase in motorbikes. > > > Craig Johnson > > Much of the statistics quoted were from both a JICA transportation study in > Hanoi, augmented with personal data collected this last summer > > > > > > > I certainly have to agree that there are too many aggressive > > motorcyclists in Athens and far too many large, semi-legal street > > racers without proper mufflers. I also agree that most current > > motorcycles pollute too much, as they don't use the latest technology. > > > > However, a total ban is ridiculous. Some things to consider. First, > > they need far less parking space, one of the reasons for their popularity. > > Second, they are far more fuel efficient than all but the smallest > > autos, unless these autos operate full, which they almost never do. > > Third, small motorcycles get run over by cars in the developing > > countries in large numbers. And the people riding them are not in the > > same income class as those who own the cars. > > > > But here is one of my main points. Yes, there are too many motorcycles > > on the road in some places, especially in southeast Asia. But, lets > > look at why. They have fast growing economies and work sites that are > > increasingly far away. Yet these countries have substandard public > > transportation, as governments (and the World Bank) have prioritized auto > facilities instead. > > What would you do if you could save enough money to buy a motorcycle? > > Blame > > a lot of the problem on pro-auto policies. > > > > The other main point is to consider the alternative. Would you rather > > have merchants and couriers shipping their goods around on > > space-conserving, low-polluting, well-muffled, and energy-conserving > > smaller motorcycles, or in cars and trucks? Motorcycles can have > > their place if public policy is sensible. To the extent they displace > > pedestrians, bicycles, or buses, motorcycles will be bad. To the > > extent they displace autos and trucks, they will be good. > > > > We have a similar discussion in the US. The Segway company has a slick > > propaganda campaign saying how these motorized vehicles will displace > > cars on short trips. I am skeptical. What they will probably do is > > displace pedestrian and bicycle trips while promoting obesity, > > electricity consumption, and broken toes. Yet, if they can actually be > > put in role where they genuinely reduce auto or truck traffic, I will > > support them. > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "K. Tsourlakis" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:45 AM > > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury > > Prevention > > > > > >> > >> At 05:59 ?? 15/4/2004 +0300, you wrote: > >> > >> >..................................... > >> >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we had > >> >a considered discussion on road safety. It would seem to me that > >> >road traffic injuries are correlated with the increase in high > >> >speed road networks and increased motorisation. The 'vulnerable > >> >road users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps > >> >other non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but > >> >perhaps also the least likely to benefit from motorisation and > >> >highways. So, from the perspective of reducing vulnerability of poor > >> >people, do we not also need a road traffic injury prevention > >> >strategy that questions the dominant paradigm of high speed > >> >motorisation? > >> >..................................... > >> > >> > >> Motorcyclists are NOT non-motorised transport users. Bunching up > > motorcyclists next to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised > > transport users is a HUGE logical and methodological mistake. And > > motorcyclists DO benefit from motorisation and highways. Especially > > benefited are the larger ones, bought (at least to some extent) always > > as entertainment toys (e.g. the only use of 70HP, 80HP, 100HP - or > > even more > > - > > motorcycle power is to break speed limits) - but smaller ones have > > certainly their share too. > >> > >> Actually motorcycles pollute like cars do (even electrical ones > >> pollute > > indirectly), are noisy (usually more than cars), kill pedestrians and > > their users (at a rate 10-40 times more frequently than cars do) and > > are not usable (not even as mere passengers like cars are) from a > > large part of the population (the most vulnerable one: babies, > > visually and kinetically impaired, elderlies etc). > >> > >> Overuse of cars has certainly destroyed world cities and brought > >> about > > many problems - it is trivial and needless to mention them on a list > > like this one. However there may exist a place even for them in an > > ideal and rationally designed transport system - e.g. in sparsely > > populated areas, for the transport of people on special needs, or > > under some particular forms like the controversial caresharing scheme. > > But what advantage would motorcycle present over bicycle use, combined > > with proper mass transport (bike racks, train facilites for bikes etc) > > for longer distances? Has anybody ever thought if the total ban of > > motorcycle were a better solution to the vulnerability and the rest of > > the problems they present? > >> > >> In Greece motorcycle use has contributed (perhaps more than cars) to > >> the > > oppression of pedestrians, the miserable situation of the public > > spaces of the city and the environmental and healthy problems (you may > > take a look at http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm ). Because of the > > deliberate encouragement of motorcycle use through a number of > > privileges (the last one is the right to use legally dedicated bus > > lanes) their number proliferated (in Athens their number is estimated > > to 1 mil - compared to 2 mil. of > > cars) > > while they are used only by a small (but mostly fanatical and > > politically > > influential) part of the population and contribute according to > > studies less than 8% to the total mobility. I am sure there are > > similar "horror stories" > > about motorcycles from Asia cities. Anybody to speak up? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______ > > _________ > >> http://www.mailbox.gr ????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? e-mail. > >> http://www.thesuperweb.gr Website ?? ??????? Controlpanel ??? 6 Euro > >> ??? > > ???? ?? domain ???! > > > > > > > > > From litman at vtpi.org Wed Apr 21 22:51:23 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 06:51:23 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Comprehensive Evaluation of Rail Transit Benefits - Media Release Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040421065034.03b6b290@mail.highspeedplus.com> MEDIA RELEASE 21 April 2004 Rail Transit Benefits Study: New study finds that cities with rail transit systems have significantly less traffic congestion, lower traffic accident rates, and lower consumer costs * * * * * * * A new study released today by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute shows that rail transit systems can significantly improve transportation system performance. ?Comprehensive Evaluation of Rail Transit Benefits? by Todd Litman analyzed the impacts of different types of transit on urban transportation patterns. The study found that cities with large rail transit systems have on average: ? 400% higher per capita transit ridership. ? 390% higher transit commute mode split. ? 36% lower per-capita traffic fatalities. ? 14% lower per capita consumer transportation expenditures. ? 19% smaller portion of household budgets devoted to transportation. ? 21% less per capita motor vehicle mileage. ? 33% lower transit operating costs per passenger-mile. ? 58% higher transit service cost recovery. The study calculates that the additional costs of rail transit systems are repaid several times over by economic savings provided to governments, businesses and consumers from reduced road and parking facility costs, vehicle cost savings, reduced traffic accident costs, and congestion cost savings. This study critiques 'Great Rail Disasters,' a report published earlier this year by Randal O?Toole of the Center for the American Dream, which claimed that rail transit investments are not cost effective. According to 'Comprehensive Evaluation of Rail Transit Benefits,' O?Toole?s report failed to correctly categorize transit systems and violated other basic evaluation principles. * * * * * * * The executive summary is available at: http://www.vtpi.org/railben.htm The full report is available at: http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf For information contact: Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute Email: litman@vtpi.org Phone: 250-360-1560 Fax: 250-360-1560 Website: www.vtpi.org * * * * * * * The Victoria Transport Policy Institute is an independent research organization dedicated to developing innovative transportation analysis and problem solving. The VTPI website (www.vtpi.org) has many resources addressing a wide range of transport planning and policy issues. PLEASE FORWARD TO ANYBODY INTERESTED IN THIS ISSUE Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk Thu Apr 22 06:03:31 2004 From: alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk (Alan P Howes) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:03:31 +0100 Subject: [sustran] (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer Message-ID: Hi sustranners - Can anyone help Fatima (who is at Trinity College, Dublin) with this request? Seems one that should be appropriate to this group. Replies direct to Fatima please, - if you cc to me as well, I will know if it was worth forwarding! Alan On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:49:24 +0100, Fatima Elaiab wrote to UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK: >Dear all. > >I am looking for studies, researches or papers that have considered the >posibiliaity of transfer transport strategies from developed countries >(experienced in transport filed) to less developed countries. The transfer >or apply the experience may be in one side of the strategy such as >technology, transport management, control car ownership level strategy or >other. I do appreciate any help in this side. >Thank you. -- Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] From czegras at MIT.EDU Thu Apr 22 06:16:18 2004 From: czegras at MIT.EDU (P. Christopher Zegras) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:16:18 -0400 Subject: [sustran] TRB 2005: Session on BRT in Developing Countries Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040421164630.025cbb90@po9.mit.edu> Annual Meeting: January 9-13, 2005 Committee on Transportation in the Developing Countries (ABE90) Sub-Committee on Bus Rapid Transit Call for Papers and Conference Session Proposals Developing Countries have been at the forefront in the emerging area of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). This mode continues to work around many of the constraints and uncertainties present in these countries - political, physical, environmental, fiscal, and social. With the second generation of BRT systems in the planning phase, analysis of the first generation systems, about how the systems actually work and the role they have played, would be quite useful in the planning and implementation of the second phase systems . What has been successful, what could be improved, and what must be avoided? Some possible topics of discussion include the following: 1. Lessons learned in the first phase BRT systems that can be used to improve the second phase of BRT systems. 2. The dynamics of BRT: How does it successfully move so many people? Does it compete successfully with rail systems, using less costly infrastructure? 3. Use of express bus lanes, off-line stations, and various other treatments for BRT. How does the design of BRT infrastructure improve service quality? 4. Land use and land value impacts of BRT. 5. Positive and negative environmental impacts (air quality, noise, etc.) of BRT vs. other available modal options. 6. Management Alternatives: concession packages, contracting and tendering arrangements. 7. Integration with other modes of transport. 8. Alternative fare policies. 9. Public response to new BRT systems and political benefits/disbenefits to the decision-makers responsible for the introduction of BRT services. 10. Applicability and transferability to other cities throughout the world. 11. Other broad areas, such as planning, funding, operations and performance. The following criteria will be used in selecting the papers for the conference: 1. Relevance of the subject covered by the paper to Bus Rapid Transit 2. Rigor, quality and originality of the paper 3. Operational relevance 4. Degree to which the paper addresses features applicable to or characteristic of cities in developing countries and replicability to other cities. Submission information: Formal papers must be submitted by 1 August 2004, through the TRB Annual Meeting website http://trb.org/ , with an electronic copy to Charles Rivasplata (Charles.Rivasplata@sfgov.org), Subcommittee Chair. Panel session proposals and suggested speakers should be submitted, by 1 August 2004 to, Charles Rivasplata with copy to V.Setty Pendakur, Committee Chair (pendakur@interchange.ubc.ca). If you have questions or comments, please contact, Charles Rivasplata. ****Please note that the TRB does not provide travel expenses for Annual Meeting speakers or panelists. From alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk Thu Apr 22 05:37:32 2004 From: alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk (Alan P Howes) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:37:32 +0100 Subject: [sustran] (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer Message-ID: Hi sustranners - Can anyone help Fatima (who is at Trinity College, Dublin) with this request? Seems one that should be appropriate to this group. Replies direct to Fatima please, - if you cc to me as well, I will know if it was worth forwarding! Alan On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:49:24 +0100, Fatima Elaiab wrote to UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK: >Dear all. > >I am looking for studies, researches or papers that have considered the >posibiliaity of transfer transport strategies from developed countries >(experienced in transport filed) to less developed countries. The transfer >or apply the experience may be in one side of the strategy such as >technology, transport management, control car ownership level strategy or >other. I do appreciate any help in this side. >Thank you. -- Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] From whook at itdp.org Thu Apr 22 22:24:05 2004 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:24:05 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer References: Message-ID: <006501c4286d$15f23e40$6801a8c0@WALTER> i think we developed countries have transferred most of our problems to developing countries, starting with the automobile and the auto-dominated highway capacity manual, for example, out of date versions still used despite very different conditions. green wave area traffic control signals, killing a lot more pedestrians, highway overpasses, transferred from developed world, disrupting transit and pedestrian and bicycle flows, metros disrupting bus-based transit systems and trapping countries in perpetual debts, etc. the big innovations came from curitiba, singapore (now developed), and china. w. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan P Howes" To: Cc: "Fatima Elaiab" Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 4:37 PM Subject: [sustran] (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer Hi sustranners - Can anyone help Fatima (who is at Trinity College, Dublin) with this request? Seems one that should be appropriate to this group. Replies direct to Fatima please, - if you cc to me as well, I will know if it was worth forwarding! Alan On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:49:24 +0100, Fatima Elaiab wrote to UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK: >Dear all. > >I am looking for studies, researches or papers that have considered the >posibiliaity of transfer transport strategies from developed countries >(experienced in transport filed) to less developed countries. The transfer >or apply the experience may be in one side of the strategy such as >technology, transport management, control car ownership level strategy or >other. I do appreciate any help in this side. >Thank you. -- Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] From richmond at alum.mit.edu Thu Apr 22 22:21:00 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:21:00 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: <006501c4286d$15f23e40$6801a8c0@WALTER> References: <006501c4286d$15f23e40$6801a8c0@WALTER> Message-ID: BRAVO! Well said (the message arrives the very evening I am re-reading Hook and Repogle's article on "Motorization and non-motorized transport in Asia" which I am having my students prepare for class tomorrow!!!) What I see is too much learning from the West without adequate local context. Consultants come in to say what needs to be done; Western textbooks are consulted when they are not appropriate to local situations. 4-step models are used when they not only have little or no predictive power but ignore pedestrian and other non-motorized movements that are vital to local mobility -- and often to the local economy as well. Cost-benefit analysis puts the needs of motorists ahead because they have higher income -- so "obviously" their time is worth more. If the West is to help, we need more of a mixing of minds: people who will come from the West to listen and observe and share concepts with local professionals as equals, rather than arriving without an understanding of context to give irrelevant instructions. --Jonathan On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Walter Hook wrote: > i think we developed countries have transferred most of our problems to > developing countries, starting with the automobile and the auto-dominated > highway capacity manual, for example, out of date versions still used > despite very different conditions. green wave area traffic control signals, > killing a lot more pedestrians, highway overpasses, transferred from > developed world, disrupting transit and pedestrian and bicycle flows, > metros disrupting bus-based transit systems and trapping countries in > perpetual debts, etc. the big innovations came from curitiba, singapore (now > developed), and china. > > w. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan P Howes" > To: > Cc: "Fatima Elaiab" > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 4:37 PM > Subject: [sustran] (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer > > > Hi sustranners - > > Can anyone help Fatima (who is at Trinity College, Dublin) with this > request? Seems one that should be appropriate to this group. > > Replies direct to Fatima please, - if you cc to me as > well, I will know if it was worth forwarding! > > Alan > > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:49:24 +0100, Fatima Elaiab > wrote to UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK: > > >Dear all. > > > >I am looking for studies, researches or papers that have considered the > >posibiliaity of transfer transport strategies from developed countries > >(experienced in transport filed) to less developed countries. The transfer > >or apply the experience may be in one side of the strategy such as > >technology, transport management, control car ownership level strategy or > >other. I do appreciate any help in this side. > >Thank you. > > -- > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Thu Apr 22 22:38:43 2004 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:38:43 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer Message-ID: Agreed. Though as ever, it's not a simple case of black and white. Walter says China is a good example - but our firm has recently been working in China (Shanghai), and has had a hard struggle to dissuade them from riding their streets of both cycles and trolleybuses. (I'm not sure of the outcome - I wasn't involved personally.) It's not only consultants who should be blamed (excluding ourselves of course!). A big problem is local politicians who think "development" means apeing the worst aspects of the "North". Just another aspect, I suppose, of the unequal terms on which the developed world deals with the rest. I think it's true, Fatima, that you will find more bad examples than good ones of strategy/policy transfer from the developed to the developing world Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan and Partners 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 240 2892 (direct) (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email. Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of CBP, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. _______________________________ >>> "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" 22/04/04 14:21:00 >>> BRAVO! Well said (the message arrives the very evening I am re-reading Hook and Repogle's article on "Motorization and non-motorized transport in Asia" which I am having my students prepare for class tomorrow!!!) What I see is too much learning from the West without adequate local context. Consultants come in to say what needs to be done; Western textbooks are consulted when they are not appropriate to local situations. 4-step models are used when they not only have little or no predictive power but ignore pedestrian and other non-motorized movements that are vital to local mobility -- and often to the local economy as well. Cost-benefit analysis puts the needs of motorists ahead because they have higher income -- so "obviously" their time is worth more. If the West is to help, we need more of a mixing of minds: people who will come from the West to listen and observe and share concepts with local professionals as equals, rather than arriving without an understanding of context to give irrelevant instructions. --Jonathan On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Walter Hook wrote: > i think we developed countries have transferred most of our problems to > developing countries, starting with the automobile and the auto-dominated > highway capacity manual, for example, out of date versions still used > despite very different conditions. green wave area traffic control signals, > killing a lot more pedestrians, highway overpasses, transferred from > developed world, disrupting transit and pedestrian and bicycle flows, > metros disrupting bus-based transit systems and trapping countries in > perpetual debts, etc. the big innovations came from curitiba, singapore (now > developed), and china. > > w. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan P Howes" > To: > Cc: "Fatima Elaiab" > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 4:37 PM > Subject: [sustran] (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer > > > Hi sustranners - > > Can anyone help Fatima (who is at Trinity College, Dublin) with this > request? Seems one that should be appropriate to this group. > > Replies direct to Fatima please, - if you cc to me as > well, I will know if it was worth forwarding! > > Alan > > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:49:24 +0100, Fatima Elaiab > wrote to UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK: > > >Dear all. > > > >I am looking for studies, researches or papers that have considered the > >posibiliaity of transfer transport strategies from developed countries > >(experienced in transport filed) to less developed countries. The transfer > >or apply the experience may be in one side of the strategy such as > >technology, transport management, control car ownership level strategy or > >other. I do appreciate any help in this side. > >Thank you. > > -- > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From gabbyherm at yahoo.com Thu Apr 22 23:14:44 2004 From: gabbyherm at yahoo.com (Gabrielle Hermann) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 07:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: <006501c4286d$15f23e40$6801a8c0@WALTER> Message-ID: <20040422141444.55053.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Walter and others, Quick follow-up question. What cities have changed their minds about building a highway or metro system upon hearing about (from Penalosa and others) or seeing Transmilenio? I know that Lima did, and I seem to remember hearing about a few African cities doing the same. Thanks, Gabrielle --- Walter Hook wrote: > i think we developed countries have transferred most > of our problems to > developing countries, starting with the automobile > and the auto-dominated > highway capacity manual, for example, out of date > versions still used > despite very different conditions. green wave area > traffic control signals, > killing a lot more pedestrians, highway overpasses, > transferred from > developed world, disrupting transit and pedestrian > and bicycle flows, > metros disrupting bus-based transit systems and > trapping countries in > perpetual debts, etc. the big innovations came from > curitiba, singapore (now > developed), and china. > > w. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan P Howes" > To: > Cc: "Fatima Elaiab" > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 4:37 PM > Subject: [sustran] (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy > transfer > > > Hi sustranners - > > Can anyone help Fatima (who is at Trinity College, > Dublin) with this > request? Seems one that should be appropriate to > this group. > > Replies direct to Fatima please, - > if you cc to me as > well, I will know if it was worth forwarding! > > Alan > > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:49:24 +0100, Fatima Elaiab > > wrote to UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK: > > >Dear all. > > > >I am looking for studies, researches or papers that > have considered the > >posibiliaity of transfer transport strategies from > developed countries > >(experienced in transport filed) to less developed > countries. The transfer > >or apply the experience may be in one side of the > strategy such as > >technology, transport management, control car > ownership level strategy or > >other. I do appreciate any help in this side. > >Thank you. > > -- > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs > Updating!] > ===== "You must be the change you wish to see in the world" - Gandhi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash From richmond at alum.mit.edu Thu Apr 22 23:32:07 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:32:07 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: <20040422141444.55053.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040422141444.55053.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: That is an interesting question, but before we get too hung up on Bus Rapid Transit, it is worth mentioning that the crying need in so many cities is for decent service for the urban poor, who depend on local buses and who are too often neglected. Here in Bangkok the 4 baht nonaircon buses, with dusty wooden floors and filled with traffic fumes which come through their glassless windows, remain packed out -- and not only with local low income people. I discovered that some of our AIT students cannot afford to transfer to the (30-40 baht) Skytrain, but sit out journeys by bus across town that take an hour or more longer to save a few baht. What risks happening is that busway transit will come to town and, as with the new rail services, with it fares will go up. I know busway fares have been controlled to decent levels in South American countries, but in places like Bangkok there is a tradition of charging more for "premium" services, and I can easily see major increases happening. Of course, what may happen is that the nonaircon buses will continue operations on parallel routes, going as slowly and uncomfortably as ever, simply accentuating the differences between services made available according to income. It seems to me that there is a strong case for improving existing ordinary services before investing in bus rapid transit, yet I do not hear advocacy for this from the busway gurus any more than from the rail people. Perhaps we need to abandon planning based on specific modes and start instead by looking at the needs of people as clients and as human beings we are to serve. --Jonathan ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From whook at itdp.org Fri Apr 23 00:13:31 2004 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:13:31 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer References: <20040422141444.55053.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00c901c4287c$5fe78280$6801a8c0@WALTER> trouble is, these bus operators trapped in congestion just cant make a lot of money to invest in new buses. the benefits of govt subsidies for new bus procurement in developing countries tend to dissipate rapidly outside of reforms of the sector. bus rapid transit seems to be the only way to make bus operations sufficiently profitable while bringing the system back into some sort of formal regulation. the new Jakarta Bus rapid transit system that opened on Jan. 15 is charging only Rp.2500, which is less than the Rp.3300 for an air conditioned bus ride. Its almost breaking even at this price. Quito, Bogota, and most other cities have set their prices at Parity. No reason bangkok could not do the same. Some preliminary BRT plans for Bangkok have been done by Dario Hidalgo, formerly the deputy director of TransMilenio, under contract for GTZ. Still not much progress on this. Skytrain even at these high prices is not at operating cost recovery, as i understand. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Cc: "Walter Hook" Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer > > That is an interesting question, but before we get too hung up on Bus > Rapid Transit, it is worth mentioning that the crying need in so many > cities is for decent service for the urban poor, who depend on local > buses and who are too often neglected. > > Here in Bangkok the 4 baht nonaircon buses, with dusty wooden floors and > filled with traffic fumes which come through their glassless windows, > remain packed out -- and not only with local low income people. I > discovered that some of our AIT students cannot afford to transfer to the > (30-40 baht) Skytrain, but sit out journeys by bus across town that take > an hour or more longer to save a few baht. > > What risks happening is that busway transit will come to town and, as with > the new rail services, with it fares will go up. I know busway fares have > been controlled to decent levels in South American countries, but in > places like Bangkok there is a tradition of charging more for "premium" > services, and I can easily see major increases happening. > > Of course, what may happen is that the nonaircon buses will continue > operations on parallel routes, going as slowly and uncomfortably as ever, > simply accentuating the differences between services made available > according to income. > > It seems to me that there is a strong case for improving existing ordinary > services before investing in bus rapid transit, yet I do not hear advocacy > for this from the busway gurus any more than from the rail people. Perhaps > we need to abandon planning based on specific modes and start instead by > looking at the needs of people as clients and as human beings we are to > serve. > > > --Jonathan > ----- > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > Transportation Engineering program > School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) > Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 > PO Box 4 > Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) > Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 > > e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Fri Apr 23 03:10:40 2004 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 02:10:40 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: References: <006501c4286d$15f23e40$6801a8c0@WALTER> Message-ID: <1082657440.40880aa02418b@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> I agree with Jonathan. I would, however, like to question the use of a concept of a monolithic "West" in globalizing and industrializing Southeast Asia. The major of large transport infrastructure projects in Bangkok have been paid for and executed by the Japanese developmental state. No "Western" nation comes close. If we consider automobiles and motorcycles as part of the technology transfer equation, again the majority is coming from Japan. Some other issues I would like to raise: -There are other complexities within the Southeast Asian region: e.g. Malaysian road engineering companies are now undertaking projects in Australia and India. -Much of the techology transfer is not being led by nation-states, but by transnational corporate enterprises. -Singapore did not "invent" road pricing which was proposed by a French economist, conceptualized and planned for practical application by economists in London, and taken up by the government in Singapore, and implemented using Japanese electronics. The success in Singapore is not so much a matter of technical innovation but of a an unusual set of political characteristics: an authoritarian government led by middle class professionals and no civil society, no automobile interests to lobby against limitations on car ownership and use, and a high level of coordination and continuity because there is effectively only one political party and one level of government administration. Hopefully these rather random points may be of some use, Fatima. Craig Townsend Quoting "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" : > > > BRAVO! Well said (the message arrives the very evening I am re-reading > Hook and Repogle's article on "Motorization and non-motorized transport in > Asia" which I am having my students prepare for class tomorrow!!!) > > What I see is too much learning from the West without adequate local > context. Consultants come in to say what needs to be done; Western > textbooks are consulted when they are not appropriate to local situations. > 4-step models are used when they not only have little or no predictive > power but ignore pedestrian and other non-motorized movements that are > vital to local mobility -- and often to the local economy as well. > Cost-benefit analysis puts the needs of motorists ahead because they have > higher income -- so "obviously" their time is worth more. > > If the West is to help, we need more of a mixing of minds: people who will > come from the West to listen and observe and share concepts with local > professionals as equals, rather than arriving without an understanding of > context to give irrelevant instructions. > > --Jonathan > > > > On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Walter Hook wrote: > > > i think we developed countries have transferred most of our problems to > > developing countries, starting with the automobile and the auto-dominated > > highway capacity manual, for example, out of date versions still used > > despite very different conditions. green wave area traffic control > signals, > > killing a lot more pedestrians, highway overpasses, transferred from > > developed world, disrupting transit and pedestrian and bicycle flows, > > metros disrupting bus-based transit systems and trapping countries in > > perpetual debts, etc. the big innovations came from curitiba, singapore > (now > > developed), and china. > > > > w. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Alan P Howes" > > To: > > Cc: "Fatima Elaiab" > > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 4:37 PM > > Subject: [sustran] (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer > > > > > > Hi sustranners - > > > > Can anyone help Fatima (who is at Trinity College, Dublin) with this > > request? Seems one that should be appropriate to this group. > > > > Replies direct to Fatima please, - if you cc to me as > > well, I will know if it was worth forwarding! > > > > Alan > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:49:24 +0100, Fatima Elaiab > > wrote to UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK: > > > > >Dear all. > > > > > >I am looking for studies, researches or papers that have considered the > > >posibiliaity of transfer transport strategies from developed countries > > >(experienced in transport filed) to less developed countries. The > transfer > > >or apply the experience may be in one side of the strategy such as > > >technology, transport management, control car ownership level strategy or > > >other. I do appreciate any help in this side. > > >Thank you. > > > > -- > > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > > > > ----- > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > Transportation Engineering program > School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) > Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 > PO Box 4 > Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) > Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 > > e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > From richmond at alum.mit.edu Fri Apr 23 03:24:25 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:24:25 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: <1082657440.40880aa02418b@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> References: <006501c4286d$15f23e40$6801a8c0@WALTER> <1082657440.40880aa02418b@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> Message-ID: Interesting psychologically that I bundled Japan with the "West." Yes, indeed, Japan has been highly active in Bangkok and yes, also, technical and financial approaches have had much in common with "Western" ones. --Jonathan On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Craig Townsend wrote: > I agree with Jonathan. > > I would, however, like to question the use of a concept of a > monolithic "West" in globalizing and industrializing Southeast Asia. The major > of large transport infrastructure projects in Bangkok have been paid for and > executed by the Japanese developmental state. No "Western" nation comes close. > If we consider automobiles and motorcycles as part of the technology transfer > equation, again the majority is coming from Japan. Some other issues I would > like to raise: > > -There are other complexities within the Southeast Asian region: e.g. > Malaysian road engineering companies are now undertaking projects in Australia > and India. > -Much of the techology transfer is not being led by nation-states, but by > transnational corporate enterprises. > -Singapore did not "invent" road pricing which was proposed by a French > economist, conceptualized and planned for practical application by economists > in London, and taken up by the government in Singapore, and implemented using > Japanese electronics. The success in Singapore is not so much a matter of > technical innovation but of a an unusual set of political characteristics: an > authoritarian government led by middle class professionals and no civil > society, no automobile interests to lobby against limitations on car ownership > and use, and a high level of coordination and continuity because there is > effectively only one political party and one level of government > administration. > > Hopefully these rather random points may be of some use, Fatima. > > Craig Townsend > > Quoting "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" : > > > > > > > BRAVO! Well said (the message arrives the very evening I am re-reading > > Hook and Repogle's article on "Motorization and non-motorized transport in > > Asia" which I am having my students prepare for class tomorrow!!!) > > > > What I see is too much learning from the West without adequate local > > context. Consultants come in to say what needs to be done; Western > > textbooks are consulted when they are not appropriate to local situations. > > 4-step models are used when they not only have little or no predictive > > power but ignore pedestrian and other non-motorized movements that are > > vital to local mobility -- and often to the local economy as well. > > Cost-benefit analysis puts the needs of motorists ahead because they have > > higher income -- so "obviously" their time is worth more. > > > > If the West is to help, we need more of a mixing of minds: people who will > > come from the West to listen and observe and share concepts with local > > professionals as equals, rather than arriving without an understanding of > > context to give irrelevant instructions. > > > > --Jonathan > > > > > > > > On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Walter Hook wrote: > > > > > i think we developed countries have transferred most of our problems to > > > developing countries, starting with the automobile and the auto-dominated > > > highway capacity manual, for example, out of date versions still used > > > despite very different conditions. green wave area traffic control > > signals, > > > killing a lot more pedestrians, highway overpasses, transferred from > > > developed world, disrupting transit and pedestrian and bicycle flows, > > > metros disrupting bus-based transit systems and trapping countries in > > > perpetual debts, etc. the big innovations came from curitiba, singapore > > (now > > > developed), and china. > > > > > > w. > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Alan P Howes" > > > To: > > > Cc: "Fatima Elaiab" > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 4:37 PM > > > Subject: [sustran] (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer > > > > > > > > > Hi sustranners - > > > > > > Can anyone help Fatima (who is at Trinity College, Dublin) with this > > > request? Seems one that should be appropriate to this group. > > > > > > Replies direct to Fatima please, - if you cc to me as > > > well, I will know if it was worth forwarding! > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:49:24 +0100, Fatima Elaiab > > > wrote to UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK: > > > > > > >Dear all. > > > > > > > >I am looking for studies, researches or papers that have considered the > > > >posibiliaity of transfer transport strategies from developed countries > > > >(experienced in transport filed) to less developed countries. The > > transfer > > > >or apply the experience may be in one side of the strategy such as > > > >technology, transport management, control car ownership level strategy or > > > >other. I do appreciate any help in this side. > > > >Thank you. > > > > > > -- > > > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > > > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > > > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > > > > > > > ----- > > > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > > Transportation Engineering program > > School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) > > Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 > > PO Box 4 > > Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) > > Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 > > > > e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > > Intl: 662 524-6051 > > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > > > > > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk Fri Apr 23 06:01:29 2004 From: alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk (Alan P Howes) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:01:29 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: <20040422141444.55053.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> References: <006501c4286d$15f23e40$6801a8c0@WALTER> <20040422141444.55053.qmail@web12902.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It's worth noting, Gabby, that in the UK the government is now restricting funding for new tram/metro schemes because of doubts about the socio-economic returns, and encouraging bus-based alternatives instead. A policy that perhaps would benefit from being transferred? (Mind you, there has also been a case of a local council effectively turning down government money to build a busway because they want trains - which there is little realistic hope of their being able to fund. Blame local politics!) Alan On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 07:14:44 -0700 (PDT), Gabrielle Hermann wrote to Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport , Walter Hook : >Hi Walter and others, > >Quick follow-up question. What cities have changed >their minds about building a highway or metro system >upon hearing about (from Penalosa and others) or >seeing Transmilenio? I know that Lima did, and I seem >to remember hearing about a few African cities doing >the same. > >Thanks, > >Gabrielle >--- Walter Hook wrote: >> i think we developed countries have transferred most >> of our problems to >> developing countries, starting with the automobile >> and the auto-dominated >> highway capacity manual, for example, out of date >> versions still used >> despite very different conditions. green wave area >> traffic control signals, >> killing a lot more pedestrians, highway overpasses, >> transferred from >> developed world, disrupting transit and pedestrian >> and bicycle flows, >> metros disrupting bus-based transit systems and >> trapping countries in >> perpetual debts, etc. the big innovations came from >> curitiba, singapore (now >> developed), and china. >> >> w. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Alan P Howes" >> To: >> Cc: "Fatima Elaiab" >> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 4:37 PM >> Subject: [sustran] (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy >> transfer >> >> >> Hi sustranners - >> >> Can anyone help Fatima (who is at Trinity College, >> Dublin) with this >> request? Seems one that should be appropriate to >> this group. >> >> Replies direct to Fatima please, - >> if you cc to me as >> well, I will know if it was worth forwarding! >> >> Alan >> >> >> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:49:24 +0100, Fatima Elaiab >> >> wrote to UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK: >> >> >Dear all. >> > >> >I am looking for studies, researches or papers that >> have considered the >> >posibiliaity of transfer transport strategies from >> developed countries >> >(experienced in transport filed) to less developed >> countries. The transfer >> >or apply the experience may be in one side of the >> strategy such as >> >technology, transport management, control car >> ownership level strategy or >> >other. I do appreciate any help in this side. >> >Thank you. >> -- Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] From karl at dnet.net.id Fri Apr 23 13:36:11 2004 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:36:11 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040423043721.E86842C259@list.jca.apc.org> Some replies *** -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan E. D. Richmond Sent: Thursday, 22 April 2004 9:32 PM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer That is an interesting question, but before we get too hung up on Bus Rapid Transit, it is worth mentioning that the crying need in so many cities is for decent service for the urban poor, who depend on local buses and who are too often neglected. *** Agreed, the bus sector in Bangkok has been long neglected. But I don't agree with the implication that bus rapid transit is not for the poor. Value of time studies e.g. from Bangladesh show the very poor are in fact under great time constraints and it's a myth to suggest they could afford to spend hours to save a few baht. We also did surveys in Surabaya and Denpasar which showed that even for the poor, the most important consideration in transit service was not in fact low fare (this came in lower down the list), but issues like reliability, speed, comfort (not being squashed in) and security. Here in Bangkok the 4 baht nonaircon buses, with dusty wooden floors and filled with traffic fumes which come through their glassless windows, remain packed out -- and not only with local low income people. *** I'd query the basis in fact of this anecdote. These 4 baht services are rapidly declining and conversely a/c services are rapidly increasing. Now a majority of large buses in Bangkok are air-con and a majority of bus trips are with air con buses. We surveyed some of the 4 baht routes and the frequency of service they offer are very unreliable. As a result their occupancy is actually not as high as the 5 baht blue/white buses, partly because you can't rely on getting a 4 baht bus. I discovered that some of our AIT students cannot afford to transfer to the (30-40 baht) Skytrain, but sit out journeys by bus across town that take an hour or more longer to save a few baht. *** But it's not a 'few baht'. Your students would probably pay a 'few baht' to save an hour or more. But whereas for 2 bus trips they might pay 10 baht in total (and the average bus route in Bangkok keep in mind is now more than 30km long, not including the 10,000 air con passenger vans which have longer routes), for the skytrain this would cost them say 30baht for the skytrain PLUS one or two transfer buses. About 75% of skytrain users have incomes more than 17,000 baht per month. It's nice, but essentially a niche service for the wealthy. What risks happening is that busway transit will come to town and, as with the new rail services, with it fares will go up. I know busway fares have been controlled to decent levels in South American countries, but in places like Bangkok there is a tradition of charging more for "premium" services, and I can easily see major increases happening. *** I agree with you it's a very important issue to consider, but I think your observation about Bangkok is misleading. The cost structure of BRT is radically different to rail. Operating and capital costs are much lower. BRT in Bangkok would consist of trunk and feeder services or an open system or some variation of the two. One great advantage of BRT would be that there are existing good bus services in Bangkok and these would become part of the feeder system. If you look into the history of fare rises in Bangkok you will see that it's very much politically controlled. The 4 baht economy fare was set for more than a decade prior to this year at 3.5 baht. Did this help 'the poor'? The result was that the 3.5 baht fare remained but the services practically disappeared. Passengers, including low income passengers, shifted to the more reliable 5 baht services and air con services. On balance the fare controls in Bangkok have probably done more harm than good to the level of service provided for the urban poor. The result has been e.g. for the economy services the creeping disappearance of the service, and 10,000 up to recently unregulated air con passenger vans emerged because 'the poor' also require a reliable service. In my view it's a good thing to offer a range of services, including premium services. Of course, what may happen is that the nonaircon buses will continue operations on parallel routes, going as slowly and uncomfortably as ever, simply accentuating the differences between services made available according to income. *** You raise a valid concern. But I'd suggest BRT could be applied virtually citywide due to the low cost and rapid implementation. I'm really - as you seem to be - against the kind of 'transit apartheid' that e.g. sees expenditure of US$150 million per km on the 20km subway, while the bus services serving 90% of public transport trips are totally neglected. But to bunch BRT in with this kind of very high costs metro spending is misleading. It seems to me that there is a strong case for improving existing ordinary services before investing in bus rapid transit, yet I do not hear advocacy for this from the busway gurus any more than from the rail people. *** There have been a long line of proposals for improving the bus services in Bangkok. The World Bank did a very big study in the late 1990s. We did some work on it in early 2003. The problem is that all of this work (none of which by the way involved BRT though some of it involved modest proposals for bus lanes) went to the shelf and virtually NOTHING was implemented. That's why in late 2003 / early 2004 we tried to promote the concept of BRT in Bangkok. I think (and still think) it's the only way to actually show the policy-makers the potential political gains and actually get the reforms implemented. *** the most important point in my view is the one raised by Walter, that buses cannot provide a good service or be profitable stuck in congestion, and that BRT can greatly reduce costs of operators while raising service quality. The potential for time savings for bus passengers through (genuine & effective) bus priority measures is huge. Hopefully the bus sector will eventually get some serious policy attention but the signs with the subway expansion plans are not great. *** regards, Karl Fjellstrom Perhaps we need to abandon planning based on specific modes and start instead by looking at the needs of people as clients and as human beings we are to serve. --Jonathan ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From richmond at alum.mit.edu Fri Apr 23 16:46:04 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:46:04 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: <20040423043721.E86842C259@list.jca.apc.org> References: <20040423043721.E86842C259@list.jca.apc.org> Message-ID: Karl, I am not really talking about differences between the 4 baht and 5 baht buses (the 5 baht blue/white ones also being nonaircon), but between the 4/5 baht buses and the 20 baht aircon ones. I am planning to get some hard data, such as is available, over the summer, but the very fact that the nonaircon buses run on the same routes as aircon ones and that crowds of people will wait for the cheaper services to save money suggests that price is an issue in choosing bus services as much as between bus and rail. You will remember that the government representative at the recent UN conference on BRT explicitly said he was not interested in keeping low fares should premium services be provided. The trend in Thailand has been to provide extremely low-quality services for the poor at low fares and to price anything else much higher. It is politically difficult to increase the cost of existing services, and there is a strong constituency for the 4 baht fare, but we have seen that when new services are introduced -- whether on the Skytrain, underground or with aircon buses, the opportunity is taken to charge much more: amounts which are far beyond the ability of people of low income to pay. I am not saying BRT programs are bad -- they would bring important benefits to Bangkok -- but I am warning that they may not be for the masses as implemented in a Thai context. I am going to have to get you to come and speak to my students at AIT before long!!! Best, --Jonathan ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From karl at dnet.net.id Fri Apr 23 18:12:27 2004 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:12:27 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040423091337.5DA2B2BCD9@list.jca.apc.org> Dear Jonathan, Thanks for your thoughts. I don't want to harp on BRT, but would like to respond re. a/c bus fares and 'the masses'. The basis of our difference of opinion on BRT is I think reflected in your grouping of 'skytrain, underground or air con buses' together as you've done below. I'd argue they are orders of magnitude apart. Skytrain and subway are high cost metros and charge much more and will - often even if heavily subsidised - be beyond the reach of most people to afford. But the same does not apply to air con buses or to BRT. The price difference between air-con and non air con buses is much more of a gradation than you suggest. The normal a/c bus fare (without going into all the intricacies) is in the range 8 to 14 baht. For Bangkok: the masses are already using buses, so why wouldn't they use BRT? Because bus operating conditions are so inefficient (largely due to congestion but also poor planning) costs are currently much higher than they need to be. Buses operating in segregated lanes in Bangkok would surely provide a much better service, at a much lower cost. Anyway, I have to admit the whole discussion on BRT in Bangkok is beginning to seem rather wistful. There are many vested interests in the rail metro expansion and despite efforts put into promoting BRT here, there is little uptake so far. Though we may disagree on aspects of bus reform, I think we'd both agree that the bus system needs to be given serious attention, and should be given priority over metro expansion and expressway expansion. Best regards, Karl PS: in principle there's no reason BRT has to involve air-con buses. Though looking at demand in Bangkok the trunk lines probably should be air con. Roughly, there are 10,000 air con passenger vans in Bangkok (charging 10 to 45 Baht), 75,000 a/c taxis, 5,000 a/c large buses, 800+ a/c minibuses, against around 5,000 non-air con buses and minibuses. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan E. D. Richmond [mailto:richmond@alum.mit.edu] Sent: Friday, 23 April 2004 2:46 PM To: karl@dnet.net.id; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer Karl, I am not really talking about differences between the 4 baht and 5 baht buses (the 5 baht blue/white ones also being nonaircon), but between the 4/5 baht buses and the 20 baht aircon ones. I am planning to get some hard data, such as is available, over the summer, but the very fact that the nonaircon buses run on the same routes as aircon ones and that crowds of people will wait for the cheaper services to save money suggests that price is an issue in choosing bus services as much as between bus and rail. You will remember that the government representative at the recent UN conference on BRT explicitly said he was not interested in keeping low fares should premium services be provided. The trend in Thailand has been to provide extremely low-quality services for the poor at low fares and to price anything else much higher. It is politically difficult to increase the cost of existing services, and there is a strong constituency for the 4 baht fare, but we have seen that when new services are introduced -- whether on the Skytrain, underground or with aircon buses, the opportunity is taken to charge much more: amounts which are far beyond the ability of people of low income to pay. I am not saying BRT programs are bad -- they would bring important benefits to Bangkok -- but I am warning that they may not be for the masses as implemented in a Thai context. I am going to have to get you to come and speak to my students at AIT before long!!! Best, --Jonathan ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From richmond at alum.mit.edu Fri Apr 23 18:28:48 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:28:48 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: <20040423091337.5DA2B2BCD9@list.jca.apc.org> References: <20040423091337.5DA2B2BCD9@list.jca.apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Karl. For everyone else: Karl is doing excellent work in getting a good debate going over transport options for Bangkok. As he says, though, there are serious constraints to making progress, and these include political deadlock and a lack of will for individuals to consider anything other than their "pet" options. I was troubled by some of the extraordinarily ugly mud-slinging that went on at the valuable conference Karl organized. --Jonathan ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From litman at vtpi.org Fri Apr 23 22:31:49 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 06:31:49 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Sustainable Mobility Principles, Practices & Priorities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040423060248.03b6ab00@mail.highspeedplus.com> Dear Eric, This is a good start on an important issue. Your list seems to be a combination of sustainable transportation principles, practices, goals, objectives and indicators. The danger is that a list like that reflects your own special concerns and priorities, and so implies that sustainability is simply a matter of personal opinion or preference. For any sort of planning I think it is useful to start with general principles and work toward more specific practices, goals and objectives, and then choose suitable indicators. I define sustainability as a decision-making process that considers economic, social and environmental goals and impacts regardless of how difficult they are to measure, including impacts that occur to people who are distant in time and space. At a minimum, this should take into account the following: ECONOMIC IMPACTS Affordability Resource efficiency Cost internalization Trade and business activity Employment Productivity Tax burden SOCIAL IMPACTS Equity Human health Education Community Quality of life Public Participation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pollution prevention Climate protection Biodiversity Precautionary action Avoidance of irreversibility Habitat preservation Aesthetics With a set of evaluation criteria such as this you can evaluate to what degree a particular policy or program (such as increased carsharing availability and use) helps achieve sustainability, and how it can be designed to best achieve sustainability objectives. You can also define indicators, such as per-capita vehicle ownership and use, per capita transportation expenditures, which are not really goals (goals are what you ultimately want to achieve, such as healthy, accessibility, wealth, etc.), but which indicate progress toward goals. I recommend being very careful with the wording you use, such as "draconian reductions," and against focusing too much on any one interest group, no matter how deserving, such as "Protect children, provide them with healthy transport" (why are children deserving more consideration than people with disabilities, or peasants, or my mother-in-law?). For more information see the "Sustainable Transportation and TDM" (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm67.htm) and "Planning" (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm50.htm) chapters of our Online TDM Encyclopedia , and: Todd Litman, "Sustainable Transportation Indicators," VTPI (www.vtpi.org), 2003. Todd Litman, ?Reinventing Transportation; Exploring the Paradigm Shift Needed to Reconcile Sustainability and Transportation Objectives,? Transportation Research Record 1670, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), 1999, pp. 8-12; available at www.vtpi.org. Todd Litman and David Burwell, "Issues in Sustainable Transportation," VTPI (www.vtpi.org), 1999. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 11:41 AM 4/23/2004 +0200, eric.britton@ecoplan.org wrote: >Dear Friends: > >Next week I am giving an overview presentation to a meeting in Italy which >is being given over issues involving the support of carsharing >innovations, a process that is already well engaged. In this context, I >also want to provide a few words on the needs for making absolutely sure >that whatever is done takes places within the necessary broader frame ? in >a phrase, a sustainable mobility system. Here is what I propose to share >with them in this context, trying to put this in the broadest strategic >context. Any comments or suggestions would be much appreciated. > >And I very much hope that this might be useful to at least some of you. > >Kind regards, > >Eric Britton > > > >Afterword: Sustainable Mobility Principles, Practices & > >Priorities > > > >(This is my vision of the broader strategic frame within which all >carsharing initiatives should be understood and developed from a public >policy perspective. It may well not be yours.) > > > >Prioritiy 1. Improve quality and quantity of access for low income >groups, neighborhoods -- as main beneficiaries of public funding. Why? . . . > >? Because it gives you more mobility bang per taxpayer buck. > >? On social justice grounds > >? Because such improvements ?trickle up? -- far better than what >happens when you start at the top of the economic spectrum and wait for >things to trickle down > >Prioritiy 2. Get used to the concept of multi-level, multi-part , >multi-player systems > * Which require the creation, integration and coordination of hundreds > of measures and players ?bearing in mind that most of these are going ort > be new, unfamiliar and at times difficult and time consuming to bring on > line. > * Leadership in such situations resides not so much in the old > practices of deciding, doing, and providing, but > * If you can?t handle this level of complexity and the leadership > challenges that go with it, give up on the idea of a sustainable and > just (and efficient) city. >Prioritiy 3. Reduce motorized vehicle traffic (and with it >accidents, pollution, etc.) > >? Targeting above all draconian reductions in low volume carriers >(cars with one or few passengers) > * Systematically transfer existing road infrastructure (roadway, > parking) to high capacity vehicles (i.e., away from private/solo driver cars) >Prioritiy 4. Protect children, provide them with healthy transport, > * Moreover, get them actively involved in understanding and even in > laying the basis for an improved system. >Prioritiy 5. Increase the space for innovation and demonstrations > * Bearing in mind that in almost all cities of the world the sector is > badly hogtied through restrictive histrionic legislation, practices, and > turf battles. >Prioritiy 6. Invite and increase entrepreneurship, innovation, >problem solving, and new and better services at highest level of >decentralization possible > >? To all three sectors (i.e., private, public and volunteer/community) > >? Reduce barriers to experimentation and new services > >? Reduce barriers to entrepreneurship > >Prioritiy 7. Become a world level sustainability performer in your >community > * By bringing people, interests and groups (say taxi drivers just to > name one of the harder nuts) to the table and finding ways to get them > positively involved in creating their city?s new, multi-level mobility system >Prioritiy 8. Manage and support success and failure: > * Increase visibility of Best Practices through honest, open and > critical reporting > * Subject all ?failures? to frank, open, generous public analysis, > discussion -- bearing in mind that in many cases these ?failures? will > carry within them the seeds of future success.. >Prioritiy 9. Get time on your side. > * Achieve early visible successes - ?Proof of concept? to get the > public on your side > * Steer clear of big expensive hardware solutions that promise to > ?solve your problems? in 10+ years (during which you will continue to > have an unsustainable and unjust city). > > > >The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice >Consult at: http://wTransport.org >To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com >To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com >To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > >---------- >Yahoo! Groups Links > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > * > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldTransport/ > > * > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > * > WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > * > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the > Yahoo! Terms of Service. Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Apr 23 18:41:40 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (eric.britton@ecoplan.org) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:41:40 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Sustainable Mobility Principles, Practices & Priorities - a proposed discussion frame Message-ID: Dear Friends: Next week I am giving an overview presentation to a meeting in Italy which is being given over issues involving the support of carsharing innovations, a process that is already well engaged. In this context, I also want to provide a few words on the needs for making absolutely sure that whatever is done takes places within the necessary broader frame ? in a phrase, a sustainable mobility system. Here is what I propose to share with them in this context, trying to put this in the broadest strategic context. Any comments or suggestions would be much appreciated. And I very much hope that this might be useful to at least some of you. Kind regards, Eric Afterword: Sustainable Mobility Principles, Practices & Priorities (This is my vision of the broader strategic frame within which all carsharing initiatives should be understood and developed from a public policy perspective. It may well not be yours.) Prioritiy 1. Improve quality and quantity of access for low income groups, neighborhoods -- as main beneficiaries of public funding. Why? . . . * Because it gives you more mobility bang per taxpayer buck. * On social justice grounds * Because such improvements ?trickle up? -- far better than what happens when you start at the top of the economic spectrum and wait for things to trickle down Prioritiy 2. Get used to the concept of multi-level, multi-part , multi-player systems * Which require the creation, integration and coordination of hundreds of measures and players ?bearing in mind that most of these are going ort be new, unfamiliar and at times difficult and time consuming to bring on line. * Leadership in such situations resides not so much in the old practices of deciding, doing, and providing, but rather in evoking and supporting positive ideas and inputs from as broad a range of people, groups and interests as possible * If you can?t handle this level of complexity and the leadership challenges that go with it, give up on the idea of a sustainable and just (and efficient) city. Prioritiy 3. Reduce motorized vehicle traffic (and with it accidents, pollution, etc.) * Targeting above all draconian reductions in low volume carriers (cars with one or few passengers) * Systematically transfer existing road infrastructure (roadway, parking) to high capacity vehicles (i.e., away from private/solo driver cars) Prioritiy 4. Protect children, provide them with healthy transport, * Moreover, get them actively involved in understanding and even in laying the basis for an improved system. Prioritiy 5. Increase the space for innovation and demonstrations * Bearing in mind that in almost all cities of the world the sector is badly hogtied through restrictive histrionic legislation, practices, and turf battles. Prioritiy 6. Invite and increase entrepreneurship, innovation, problem solving, and new and better services at highest level of decentralization possible * To all three sectors (i.e., private, public and volunteer/community) * Reduce barriers to experimentation and new services * Reduce barriers to entrepreneurship Prioritiy 7. Become a world level sustainability performer in your community * By bringing people, interests and groups (say taxi drivers just to name one of the harder nuts) to the table and finding ways to get them positively involved in creating their city?s new, multi-level mobility system Prioritiy 8. Manage and support success and failure: * Increase visibility of Best Practices through honest, open and critical reporting * Subject all ?failures? to frank, open, generous public analysis, discussion -- bearing in mind that in many cases these ?failures? will carry within them the seeds of future success.. Prioritiy 9. Get time on your side. * Achieve early visible successes - ?Proof of concept? to get the public on your side * Steer clear of big expensive hardware solutions that promise to ?solve your problems? in 10+ years (during which you will continue to have an unsustainable and unjust city). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040423/aa906af3/attachment-0001.html From richmond at alum.mit.edu Sat Apr 24 13:56:19 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:56:19 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustainable Mobility Principles, Practices & Priorities - a proposed discussion frame In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That is an excellent set of principles but I hope that, in the talk, issues of how they are to be brought into practice will be discussed: that is the difficult matter. --Jonathan ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From richmond at alum.mit.edu Sat Apr 24 13:56:19 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:56:19 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Sustainable Mobility Principles, Practices & Priorities - a proposed discussion frame In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That is an excellent set of principles but I hope that, in the talk, issues of how they are to be brought into practice will be discussed: that is the difficult matter. --Jonathan ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From etts at indigo.ie Sat Apr 24 18:07:18 2004 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:07:18 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam References: <200404191145.OAA26204@mailbox.gr><006c01c4266a$85143760$aafc45cf@earthlink.net> <1109.128.253.41.107.1082438898.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> Message-ID: <008401c429db$8bd3d9b0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Craig, I agree with your assessment. I visited Hanoi last year. After the initial shock of the waves of two-wheelers, I began to understand that it really does flow, sort of like a large shoal of fish, Each individual really does have a sense of those around them, and behaves in a quite predictable way. It's also clear that while they may look chaotic, each rider does behave in a collision-avoidance mode. I did not once observe a collision or anyone falling off their bicycle to avoid a collision. It's the first time I had come across such level of two-wheeler use, and it was obvious that it works really well. My observation was that all forms of two-wheelers (even those with 12-foot pipes!) can interact very well with each other. Further, pedestrians can quite easily cross the flows, as long as you time it reasonably well and behave predictably (my initially-terrified wife agreed on this one, eventually). However, the introduction of even one car into this changed the picture dramatically. The scale of the car makes it a blockage, and the driving style means that it barges its way through, unwilling or unable to interact sensitively with the two-wheelers. I do not believe that cars and two-wheelers on Hanoi scale can interact safely. I didn't come to a conclusion about buses. Because there are far fewer of them than cars, they are highly visible, and they drive slowly in a predictable (albeit unyielding) way, it seems that a certain number of buses can be absorbed in the flow of two-wheelers. My personal opinion is that as a pedestrian I was far safer crossing the streets of down-town Hanoi than almost any where else I have been. Nonetheless, I believe that the promoters of automobiles will win, and that very shortly two-wheeler travel will have become extremely dangerous due to the number of cars. Since it is the mode of availability and affordability for over 95% of Vietnamese, they will continue to use it and will suffer high rates of casualty. Brendan Finn, ETTS, Ireland. _______________________________________________________________________ Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig August Johnson" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Cc: ; "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:28 AM Subject: [sustran] Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam > In terms of motorcycle use in Southeast Asia, I think there are examples > of how motorbikes have provided a viable alternative to an auto-based > urban transportation system. In Vietnam, while the high rate of motorcycle > usage (60% of traffic is on motorbikes) has displaced pedestrians from the > streets. High numbers of motorbikes have been able to coexist quite well > with high usage of bikes (30% of traffic is on bicycles). This has > contributed to a dynamic high energy street life that is quite different > than a more pedestrian-centered street life, but still viable. Sure there > are a greater number of collisions between > motorbikes-pedestrians-bicycles, but these collisions are usually not > fatal, and are rarely treated as accidents. Most of the road fatalities in > Vietnam happen on highways and not in the cities. > > Given the speed and the scope of motorization in Vietnam, the negative > impacts of motorization that one acutely experience in America such as > sprawl, smog, congestion, and the social inequality arising from > inadequate public mass transportation are not found in Vietnamese cities > for the following reasons: > > 1. Motorcycles pollute far less than cars- especially four stroke engine > motorcycles. An 80cc four-stroke engine scooter can get 85-90 miles per > gallon much better than a typical car at around 30 mpg. Also, there are > many viable electric scooters on the market that are zero emissions. > > 2. Parking is not a big issue for motorcycles. Vietnamese cities are > incredibly dense, thus allowing cities to become quite dense and still > relatively uncongested given the high density. > > 3. While riding a motorbike, one has much greater connection to the > surrounding street. One is not able to control the personal environment > like in a car, so the importance of street life and streetscape are not > lost by the increase in motorbikes. > > 4. Motorcycles are cheaper than cars making motorbikes a more equitable > form of individual motorized transportation. In Vietnam, the price of a > car is 15x the price of a motorbike. As a result Vietnam has a rate of > around 300 motor vehicles/1000 people. This is on par with many > industrialized European countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands. > Motorbikes have given all the benefits of owning private vehicle such as > personal mobility, speed, and no wait time while still being quite > affordable. > > 5. Motorbikes do not take up as much space on the road. In Hanoi there is > less than .17 km of auto-accessible road length per 1000 residents. This > compares drastically to New York which is 9.97km and Singapore which is > .98km per 1000 residents. > > Indeed, Vietnamese cities have been able to economically develop at great > speed, partly because the cities have not had to build an auto-based road > infrastructure. Now, though Vietnam is building the road infrastructure > with funding from World Bank and JBIC, and the increase in cars that is > now occurring in Vietnam will contribute much more to traffic > fatalities/congestion/pollution/sprawl/and social inequality than > motorbikes. Like Eric said, the pro-auto policies are having a much more > detrimental effect than the huge increase in motorbikes. > > > Craig Johnson > > Much of the statistics quoted were from both a JICA transportation study > in Hanoi, augmented with personal data collected this last summer > > > > > > > I certainly have to agree that there are too many aggressive motorcyclists > > in Athens and far too many large, semi-legal street racers without proper > > mufflers. I also agree that most current motorcycles pollute too much, as > > they don't use the latest technology. > > > > However, a total ban is ridiculous. Some things to consider. First, they > > need far less parking space, one of the reasons for their popularity. > > Second, they are far more fuel efficient than all but the smallest autos, > > unless these autos operate full, which they almost never do. Third, small > > motorcycles get run over by cars in the developing countries in large > > numbers. And the people riding them are not in the same income class as > > those who own the cars. > > > > But here is one of my main points. Yes, there are too many motorcycles on > > the road in some places, especially in southeast Asia. But, lets look at > > why. They have fast growing economies and work sites that are increasingly > > far away. Yet these countries have substandard public transportation, as > > governments (and the World Bank) have prioritized auto facilities instead. > > What would you do if you could save enough money to buy a motorcycle? > > Blame > > a lot of the problem on pro-auto policies. > > > > The other main point is to consider the alternative. Would you rather have > > merchants and couriers shipping their goods around on space-conserving, > > low-polluting, well-muffled, and energy-conserving smaller motorcycles, or > > in cars and trucks? Motorcycles can have their place if public policy is > > sensible. To the extent they displace pedestrians, bicycles, or buses, > > motorcycles will be bad. To the extent they displace autos and trucks, > > they > > will be good. > > > > We have a similar discussion in the US. The Segway company has a slick > > propaganda campaign saying how these motorized vehicles will displace cars > > on short trips. I am skeptical. What they will probably do is displace > > pedestrian and bicycle trips while promoting obesity, electricity > > consumption, and broken toes. Yet, if they can actually be put in role > > where > > they genuinely reduce auto or truck traffic, I will support them. > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "K. Tsourlakis" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:45 AM > > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention > > > > > >> > >> At 05:59 ?? 15/4/2004 +0300, you wrote: > >> > >> >..................................... > >> >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we had > >> >a considered discussion on road safety. It would seem to me that > >> >road traffic injuries are correlated with the increase in high > >> >speed road networks and increased motorisation. The 'vulnerable > >> >road users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps > >> >other non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but > >> >perhaps also the least likely to benefit from motorisation and > >> >highways. So, from the perspective of reducing vulnerability of > >> >poor people, do we not also need a road traffic injury prevention > >> >strategy that questions the dominant paradigm of high speed > >> >motorisation? > >> >..................................... > >> > >> > >> Motorcyclists are NOT non-motorised transport users. Bunching up > > motorcyclists next to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised > > transport users is a HUGE logical and methodological mistake. And > > motorcyclists DO benefit from motorisation and highways. Especially > > benefited are the larger ones, bought (at least to some extent) always as > > entertainment toys (e.g. the only use of 70HP, 80HP, 100HP - or even more > > - > > motorcycle power is to break speed limits) - but smaller ones have > > certainly > > their share too. > >> > >> Actually motorcycles pollute like cars do (even electrical ones pollute > > indirectly), are noisy (usually more than cars), kill pedestrians and > > their > > users (at a rate 10-40 times more frequently than cars do) and are not > > usable (not even as mere passengers like cars are) from a large part of > > the > > population (the most vulnerable one: babies, visually and kinetically > > impaired, elderlies etc). > >> > >> Overuse of cars has certainly destroyed world cities and brought about > > many problems - it is trivial and needless to mention them on a list like > > this one. However there may exist a place even for them in an ideal and > > rationally designed transport system - e.g. in sparsely populated areas, > > for > > the transport of people on special needs, or under some particular forms > > like the controversial caresharing scheme. But what advantage would > > motorcycle present over bicycle use, combined with proper mass transport > > (bike racks, train facilites for bikes etc) for longer distances? Has > > anybody ever thought if the total ban of motorcycle were a better solution > > to the vulnerability and the rest of the problems they present? > >> > >> In Greece motorcycle use has contributed (perhaps more than cars) to the > > oppression of pedestrians, the miserable situation of the public spaces of > > the city and the environmental and healthy problems (you may take a look > > at > > http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm ). Because of the deliberate > > encouragement of motorcycle use through a number of privileges (the last > > one > > is the right to use legally dedicated bus lanes) their number proliferated > > (in Athens their number is estimated to 1 mil - compared to 2 mil. of > > cars) > > while they are used only by a small (but mostly fanatical and politically > > influential) part of the population and contribute according to studies > > less > > than 8% to the total mobility. I am sure there are similar "horror > > stories" > > about motorcycles from Asia cities. Anybody to speak up? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > _________ > >> http://www.mailbox.gr ????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? e-mail. > >> http://www.thesuperweb.gr Website ?? ??????? Controlpanel ??? 6 Euro ??? > > ???? ?? domain ???! > > > > > > From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Sun Apr 25 05:54:23 2004 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:54:23 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam In-Reply-To: <008401c429db$8bd3d9b0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> References: <200404191145.OAA26204@mailbox.gr><006c01c4266a$85143760$aafc45cf@earthlink.net> <1109.128.253.41.107.1082438898.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> <008401c429db$8bd3d9b0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Message-ID: <1082840063.408ad3ff6ddb1@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> Craig and Brendan, While I agree that the functioning of Vietnam's motorcycle-based urban transport systems are rather remarkable, we should not overlook the incredibly high transport related injuries and deaths. According to data collected on 100 cities worldwide in 1995, in terms of transport deaths per passenger kilometre of motorized travel, Ho Chi Minh City ranked worst out of 100 cities from developing and developed countries. These numbers have grown far worse over the last 10 years (rougly a four fold increase), and the road toll (which have become the leading cause chilrens' deaths in Vietnam) is now a major concern of the government of Vietnam and the World Health Organisation. Craig Townsend Quoting Brendan Finn : > Craig, > > I agree with your assessment. I visited Hanoi last year. After the initial > shock of the waves of two-wheelers, I began to understand that it really > does flow, sort of like a large shoal of fish, Each individual really does > have a sense of those around them, and behaves in a quite predictable way. > It's also clear that while they may look chaotic, each rider does behave in > a collision-avoidance mode. I did not once observe a collision or anyone > falling off their bicycle to avoid a collision. It's the first time I had > come across such level of two-wheeler use, and it was obvious that it works > really well. > > My observation was that all forms of two-wheelers (even those with 12-foot > pipes!) can interact very well with each other. Further, pedestrians can > quite easily cross the flows, as long as you time it reasonably well and > behave predictably (my initially-terrified wife agreed on this one, > eventually). > > However, the introduction of even one car into this changed the picture > dramatically. The scale of the car makes it a blockage, and the driving > style means that it barges its way through, unwilling or unable to interact > sensitively with the two-wheelers. I do not believe that cars and > two-wheelers on Hanoi scale can interact safely. > > I didn't come to a conclusion about buses. Because there are far fewer of > them than cars, they are highly visible, and they drive slowly in a > predictable (albeit unyielding) way, it seems that a certain number of buses > can be absorbed in the flow of two-wheelers. > > My personal opinion is that as a pedestrian I was far safer crossing the > streets of down-town Hanoi than almost any where else I have been. > Nonetheless, I believe that the promoters of automobiles will win, and that > very shortly two-wheeler travel will have become extremely dangerous due to > the number of cars. Since it is the mode of availability and affordability > for over 95% of Vietnamese, they will continue to use it and will suffer > high rates of casualty. > > > Brendan Finn, > ETTS, Ireland. > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Craig August Johnson" > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Cc: ; "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:28 AM > Subject: [sustran] Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam > > > > In terms of motorcycle use in Southeast Asia, I think there are examples > > of how motorbikes have provided a viable alternative to an auto-based > > urban transportation system. In Vietnam, while the high rate of motorcycle > > usage (60% of traffic is on motorbikes) has displaced pedestrians from the > > streets. High numbers of motorbikes have been able to coexist quite well > > with high usage of bikes (30% of traffic is on bicycles). This has > > contributed to a dynamic high energy street life that is quite different > > than a more pedestrian-centered street life, but still viable. Sure there > > are a greater number of collisions between > > motorbikes-pedestrians-bicycles, but these collisions are usually not > > fatal, and are rarely treated as accidents. Most of the road fatalities in > > Vietnam happen on highways and not in the cities. > > > > Given the speed and the scope of motorization in Vietnam, the negative > > impacts of motorization that one acutely experience in America such as > > sprawl, smog, congestion, and the social inequality arising from > > inadequate public mass transportation are not found in Vietnamese cities > > for the following reasons: > > > > 1. Motorcycles pollute far less than cars- especially four stroke engine > > motorcycles. An 80cc four-stroke engine scooter can get 85-90 miles per > > gallon much better than a typical car at around 30 mpg. Also, there are > > many viable electric scooters on the market that are zero emissions. > > > > 2. Parking is not a big issue for motorcycles. Vietnamese cities are > > incredibly dense, thus allowing cities to become quite dense and still > > relatively uncongested given the high density. > > > > 3. While riding a motorbike, one has much greater connection to the > > surrounding street. One is not able to control the personal environment > > like in a car, so the importance of street life and streetscape are not > > lost by the increase in motorbikes. > > > > 4. Motorcycles are cheaper than cars making motorbikes a more equitable > > form of individual motorized transportation. In Vietnam, the price of a > > car is 15x the price of a motorbike. As a result Vietnam has a rate of > > around 300 motor vehicles/1000 people. This is on par with many > > industrialized European countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands. > > Motorbikes have given all the benefits of owning private vehicle such as > > personal mobility, speed, and no wait time while still being quite > > affordable. > > > > 5. Motorbikes do not take up as much space on the road. In Hanoi there is > > less than .17 km of auto-accessible road length per 1000 residents. This > > compares drastically to New York which is 9.97km and Singapore which is > > .98km per 1000 residents. > > > > Indeed, Vietnamese cities have been able to economically develop at great > > speed, partly because the cities have not had to build an auto-based road > > infrastructure. Now, though Vietnam is building the road infrastructure > > with funding from World Bank and JBIC, and the increase in cars that is > > now occurring in Vietnam will contribute much more to traffic > > fatalities/congestion/pollution/sprawl/and social inequality than > > motorbikes. Like Eric said, the pro-auto policies are having a much more > > detrimental effect than the huge increase in motorbikes. > > > > > > Craig Johnson > > > > Much of the statistics quoted were from both a JICA transportation study > > in Hanoi, augmented with personal data collected this last summer > > > > > > > > > > > > I certainly have to agree that there are too many aggressive > motorcyclists > > > in Athens and far too many large, semi-legal street racers without > proper > > > mufflers. I also agree that most current motorcycles pollute too much, > as > > > they don't use the latest technology. > > > > > > However, a total ban is ridiculous. Some things to consider. First, they > > > need far less parking space, one of the reasons for their popularity. > > > Second, they are far more fuel efficient than all but the smallest > autos, > > > unless these autos operate full, which they almost never do. Third, > small > > > motorcycles get run over by cars in the developing countries in large > > > numbers. And the people riding them are not in the same income class as > > > those who own the cars. > > > > > > But here is one of my main points. Yes, there are too many motorcycles > on > > > the road in some places, especially in southeast Asia. But, lets look at > > > why. They have fast growing economies and work sites that are > increasingly > > > far away. Yet these countries have substandard public transportation, as > > > governments (and the World Bank) have prioritized auto facilities > instead. > > > What would you do if you could save enough money to buy a motorcycle? > > > Blame > > > a lot of the problem on pro-auto policies. > > > > > > The other main point is to consider the alternative. Would you rather > have > > > merchants and couriers shipping their goods around on space-conserving, > > > low-polluting, well-muffled, and energy-conserving smaller motorcycles, > or > > > in cars and trucks? Motorcycles can have their place if public policy > is > > > sensible. To the extent they displace pedestrians, bicycles, or buses, > > > motorcycles will be bad. To the extent they displace autos and trucks, > > > they > > > will be good. > > > > > > We have a similar discussion in the US. The Segway company has a slick > > > propaganda campaign saying how these motorized vehicles will displace > cars > > > on short trips. I am skeptical. What they will probably do is displace > > > pedestrian and bicycle trips while promoting obesity, electricity > > > consumption, and broken toes. Yet, if they can actually be put in role > > > where > > > they genuinely reduce auto or truck traffic, I will support them. > > > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "K. Tsourlakis" > > > To: > > > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:45 AM > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention > > > > > > > > >> > > >> At 05:59 ?? 15/4/2004 +0300, you wrote: > > >> > > >> >..................................... > > >> >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we had > > >> >a considered discussion on road safety. It would seem to me that > > >> >road traffic injuries are correlated with the increase in high > > >> >speed road networks and increased motorisation. The 'vulnerable > > >> >road users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps > > >> >other non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but > > >> >perhaps also the least likely to benefit from motorisation and > > >> >highways. So, from the perspective of reducing vulnerability of > > >> >poor people, do we not also need a road traffic injury prevention > > >> >strategy that questions the dominant paradigm of high speed > > >> >motorisation? > > >> >..................................... > > >> > > >> > > >> Motorcyclists are NOT non-motorised transport users. Bunching up > > > motorcyclists next to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised > > > transport users is a HUGE logical and methodological mistake. And > > > motorcyclists DO benefit from motorisation and highways. Especially > > > benefited are the larger ones, bought (at least to some extent) always > as > > > entertainment toys (e.g. the only use of 70HP, 80HP, 100HP - or even > more > > > - > > > motorcycle power is to break speed limits) - but smaller ones have > > > certainly > > > their share too. > > >> > > >> Actually motorcycles pollute like cars do (even electrical ones pollute > > > indirectly), are noisy (usually more than cars), kill pedestrians and > > > their > > > users (at a rate 10-40 times more frequently than cars do) and are not > > > usable (not even as mere passengers like cars are) from a large part of > > > the > > > population (the most vulnerable one: babies, visually and kinetically > > > impaired, elderlies etc). > > >> > > >> Overuse of cars has certainly destroyed world cities and brought about > > > many problems - it is trivial and needless to mention them on a list > like > > > this one. However there may exist a place even for them in an ideal and > > > rationally designed transport system - e.g. in sparsely populated areas, > > > for > > > the transport of people on special needs, or under some particular forms > > > like the controversial caresharing scheme. But what advantage would > > > motorcycle present over bicycle use, combined with proper mass transport > > > (bike racks, train facilites for bikes etc) for longer distances? Has > > > anybody ever thought if the total ban of motorcycle were a better > solution > > > to the vulnerability and the rest of the problems they present? > > >> > > >> In Greece motorcycle use has contributed (perhaps more than cars) to > the > > > oppression of pedestrians, the miserable situation of the public spaces > of > > > the city and the environmental and healthy problems (you may take a look > > > at > > > http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm ). Because of the deliberate > > > encouragement of motorcycle use through a number of privileges (the last > > > one > > > is the right to use legally dedicated bus lanes) their number > proliferated > > > (in Athens their number is estimated to 1 mil - compared to 2 mil. of > > > cars) > > > while they are used only by a small (but mostly fanatical and > politically > > > influential) part of the population and contribute according to studies > > > less > > > than 8% to the total mobility. I am sure there are similar "horror > > > stories" > > > about motorcycles from Asia cities. Anybody to speak up? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > > _________ > > >> http://www.mailbox.gr ????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? e-mail. > > >> http://www.thesuperweb.gr Website ?? ??????? Controlpanel ??? 6 Euro > ??? > > > ???? ?? domain ???! > > > > > > > > > > > > > From etts at indigo.ie Sun Apr 25 06:37:34 2004 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:37:34 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer References: <20040423043721.E86842C259@list.jca.apc.org> Message-ID: <011001c42a44$5b095ee0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Jonathon, Taking Bangkok as an example, is there any practical way to provide bus services on a commercial basis at fares affordable to the poor with anything other than low-quality, low-cost buses ? If there is, I'd like to hear it, since it seems to be an intractable puzzle in many countries. My experience in the CIS is that you can cover direct operating costs of old vehicles at low fares. To move to a new vehicle - however basic - requires a premium fare compared to the "social" fare. In part this reflects the high cost of capital, linked to low security of tenure on the route, and hence higher interest both to reflect the risk and the lack of financial weight of the borrower. In greater part, though, is the relative cost of hard assets compared to the fares income. In Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, I have seen no shortage of takers for the premium fare services, which offer a much higher quality of service in the eyes of the users - a seat, speed, cleanliness, and much less unwanted proximity (especially for women). Of course, this leaves the social travel and the poorest with the low-cost services, leading them inexorably down the sinkhole. I find myself agreeing with others that BRT in itself should not have negative impact on low-cost services, unless they are excluded from it simply because they are deemed not modern enough. In that case the fault is not BRT but the implemented policies. But there is a very valid case to exclude rustbuckets and unroadworthy vehicles. There is also a very good case to exclude stopping services where they hamper the flow of other bus services. I guess a factor to take into account is whether the economy and people's wages and living conditions are in transition. It is reasonable to aim to transform the public transport services to better quality in line with the improvements experienced in other walks of life, and to charge more for it. With best wishes, Brendan Finn, ETTS, Ireland. _______________________________________________________________________ Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" To: ; "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 8:46 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer > > Karl, I am not really talking about differences between the 4 baht and 5 > baht buses (the 5 baht blue/white ones also being nonaircon), but between > the 4/5 baht buses and the 20 baht aircon ones. I am planning to get some > hard data, such as is available, over the summer, but the very fact that > the nonaircon buses run on the same routes as aircon ones and that crowds > of people will wait for the cheaper services to save money suggests that > price is an issue in choosing bus services as much as between bus and rail. > > You will remember that the government representative at the recent UN > conference on BRT explicitly said he was not interested in keeping low > fares should premium services be provided. The trend in Thailand has been to > provide extremely low-quality services for the poor at low fares and to > price anything else much higher. It is politically difficult to increase the > cost of existing services, and there is a strong constituency for the 4 > baht fare, but we have seen that when new services are introduced -- > whether on the Skytrain, underground or with aircon buses, the > opportunity is taken to charge much more: amounts which are far beyond > the ability of people of low income to pay. > > I am not saying BRT programs are bad -- they would bring important > benefits to Bangkok -- but I am warning that they may not be for the > masses as implemented in a Thai context. > > I am going to have to get you to come and speak to my students at AIT > before long!!! > > Best, > > --Jonathan > > ----- > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > Transportation Engineering program > School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) > Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 > PO Box 4 > Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) > Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 > > e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > From etts at indigo.ie Sun Apr 25 06:51:30 2004 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:51:30 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam References: <200404191145.OAA26204@mailbox.gr><006c01c4266a$85143760$aafc45cf@earthlink.net><1109.128.253.41.107.1082438898.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu><008401c429db$8bd3d9b0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> <1082840063.408ad3ff6ddb1@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> Message-ID: <011701c42a46$4e35ea10$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Craig, For the high level of transport deaths in Ho Chi Minh City, I wonder how many of them were four+ wheelers against 2-wheelers or pedestrians, and how many were wallies-on-wheels that would manage to kill themselves in any scenario (as in Thailand during the annual festival). It would be interesting to know whether the inherent safety of two-wheelers and pedestrians (excluding the wild boys) is low, medium or high. It seems to me that two-wheeler and pedestrian traffic in itself is safe, but it just cannot co-exist with larger vehicles. And since the latter are determined to be on the streets, gentler forms of transport must be removed for their own safety. With best wishes, Brendan Finn, ETTS, Ireland. _______________________________________________________________________ Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Townsend" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:54 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam > Craig and Brendan, > > While I agree that the functioning of Vietnam's motorcycle-based > urban transport systems are rather remarkable, we should not overlook the > incredibly high transport related injuries and deaths. According to data > collected on 100 cities worldwide in 1995, in terms of transport > deaths per passenger kilometre of motorized travel, Ho Chi Minh City ranked > worst out of 100 cities from developing and developed countries. These numbers > have grown far worse over the last 10 years (rougly a four fold increase), and > the road toll (which have become the leading cause chilrens' deaths in > Vietnam) is now a major concern of the government of Vietnam and the World > Health Organisation. > > Craig Townsend > > Quoting Brendan Finn : > > > Craig, > > > > I agree with your assessment. I visited Hanoi last year. After the initial > > shock of the waves of two-wheelers, I began to understand that it really > > does flow, sort of like a large shoal of fish, Each individual really does > > have a sense of those around them, and behaves in a quite predictable way. > > It's also clear that while they may look chaotic, each rider does behave in > > a collision-avoidance mode. I did not once observe a collision or anyone > > falling off their bicycle to avoid a collision. It's the first time I had > > come across such level of two-wheeler use, and it was obvious that it works > > really well. > > > > My observation was that all forms of two-wheelers (even those with 12-foot > > pipes!) can interact very well with each other. Further, pedestrians can > > quite easily cross the flows, as long as you time it reasonably well and > > behave predictably (my initially-terrified wife agreed on this one, > > eventually). > > > > However, the introduction of even one car into this changed the picture > > dramatically. The scale of the car makes it a blockage, and the driving > > style means that it barges its way through, unwilling or unable to interact > > sensitively with the two-wheelers. I do not believe that cars and > > two-wheelers on Hanoi scale can interact safely. > > > > I didn't come to a conclusion about buses. Because there are far fewer of > > them than cars, they are highly visible, and they drive slowly in a > > predictable (albeit unyielding) way, it seems that a certain number of buses > > can be absorbed in the flow of two-wheelers. > > > > My personal opinion is that as a pedestrian I was far safer crossing the > > streets of down-town Hanoi than almost any where else I have been. > > Nonetheless, I believe that the promoters of automobiles will win, and that > > very shortly two-wheeler travel will have become extremely dangerous due to > > the number of cars. Since it is the mode of availability and affordability > > for over 95% of Vietnamese, they will continue to use it and will suffer > > high rates of casualty. > > > > > > Brendan Finn, > > ETTS, Ireland. > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Craig August Johnson" > > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > > Cc: ; "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:28 AM > > Subject: [sustran] Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam > > > > > > > In terms of motorcycle use in Southeast Asia, I think there are examples > > > of how motorbikes have provided a viable alternative to an auto-based > > > urban transportation system. In Vietnam, while the high rate of motorcycle > > > usage (60% of traffic is on motorbikes) has displaced pedestrians from the > > > streets. High numbers of motorbikes have been able to coexist quite well > > > with high usage of bikes (30% of traffic is on bicycles). This has > > > contributed to a dynamic high energy street life that is quite different > > > than a more pedestrian-centered street life, but still viable. Sure there > > > are a greater number of collisions between > > > motorbikes-pedestrians-bicycles, but these collisions are usually not > > > fatal, and are rarely treated as accidents. Most of the road fatalities in > > > Vietnam happen on highways and not in the cities. > > > > > > Given the speed and the scope of motorization in Vietnam, the negative > > > impacts of motorization that one acutely experience in America such as > > > sprawl, smog, congestion, and the social inequality arising from > > > inadequate public mass transportation are not found in Vietnamese cities > > > for the following reasons: > > > > > > 1. Motorcycles pollute far less than cars- especially four stroke engine > > > motorcycles. An 80cc four-stroke engine scooter can get 85-90 miles per > > > gallon much better than a typical car at around 30 mpg. Also, there are > > > many viable electric scooters on the market that are zero emissions. > > > > > > 2. Parking is not a big issue for motorcycles. Vietnamese cities are > > > incredibly dense, thus allowing cities to become quite dense and still > > > relatively uncongested given the high density. > > > > > > 3. While riding a motorbike, one has much greater connection to the > > > surrounding street. One is not able to control the personal environment > > > like in a car, so the importance of street life and streetscape are not > > > lost by the increase in motorbikes. > > > > > > 4. Motorcycles are cheaper than cars making motorbikes a more equitable > > > form of individual motorized transportation. In Vietnam, the price of a > > > car is 15x the price of a motorbike. As a result Vietnam has a rate of > > > around 300 motor vehicles/1000 people. This is on par with many > > > industrialized European countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands. > > > Motorbikes have given all the benefits of owning private vehicle such as > > > personal mobility, speed, and no wait time while still being quite > > > affordable. > > > > > > 5. Motorbikes do not take up as much space on the road. In Hanoi there is > > > less than .17 km of auto-accessible road length per 1000 residents. This > > > compares drastically to New York which is 9.97km and Singapore which is > > > .98km per 1000 residents. > > > > > > Indeed, Vietnamese cities have been able to economically develop at great > > > speed, partly because the cities have not had to build an auto-based road > > > infrastructure. Now, though Vietnam is building the road infrastructure > > > with funding from World Bank and JBIC, and the increase in cars that is > > > now occurring in Vietnam will contribute much more to traffic > > > fatalities/congestion/pollution/sprawl/and social inequality than > > > motorbikes. Like Eric said, the pro-auto policies are having a much more > > > detrimental effect than the huge increase in motorbikes. > > > > > > > > > Craig Johnson > > > > > > Much of the statistics quoted were from both a JICA transportation study > > > in Hanoi, augmented with personal data collected this last summer From richmond at alum.mit.edu Sun Apr 25 14:53:58 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:53:58 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam In-Reply-To: <1082840063.408ad3ff6ddb1@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> References: <200404191145.OAA26204@mailbox.gr><006c01c4266a$85143760$aafc45cf@earthlink.net> <1109.128.253.41.107.1082438898.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> <008401c429db$8bd3d9b0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> <1082840063.408ad3ff6ddb1@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> Message-ID: I am not sure we are looking at the whole picture in an adequate way. I travelled extensively in Cambodia last winter, and my main means of getting round was motorbike taxi. I travelled hundreds of kilometers through the countryside on broken up roads as well as in urban areas and was a bright orange-dust colour by the end of it! My observation was that the motorcycle is clearly an important means of transport in Cambodia, but that no attention is given to the management of motorcycle versus other traffic flows or to safety issues. Driving is generally on the level of the insane. To start with, helmets are rarely if ever worn. At one point in Phnom Penh, my driver suddenly swerved into and then started dodging through oncoming traffic on the wrong side of the road. He told me that he had seen a policeman and was worried about being arrested because he was not registered -- interesting that registration (which involves paying fees) is enforced, but safety is not. Motorcycles are often used as family cars. I have seen as many as five people on board. Children never have head protection and are often sandwiched between adults. If only one adult is on board, very small children will often simply cling on to the back of the parent and could easily be dislodged and flung into the road. There is no urban public transport anywhere in Cambodia except for the extraordinary wooden platforms hauled by motorcycles in Phnom Penh and used by the poorest of factory workers to get to and from shifts. It is an amazing sight to see these in action: nothing more than flat boards on which twenty people are loaded without any protection or shade. We do have to recognize that the motorcycle provides an important source of mobility in countries like Cambodia. The important thing is to regulate usage: proper handling and safety issues need to be taught and enforced. In urban areas, road markings should recognize the volume of motorcycles and provide segregated and safe facilities. Action should be taken to control the pollution levels of bikes. Individual mobility is not bad in itself. Everyone aspires to have it, and it makes life a lot easier. It should not be the preserve of the wealthy alone. The problem is controlling the negative environmental consequences of that mobility, and in the case of the motorcycle, there is a lot that can be done while recognizing the flexibility and convenience of a mode of transport low-income people can aspire to in countries which lack the resources to develop public transport facilities or where, frankly, scarce resources may be more importantly needed in other areas of social action. Transport is not something to be looked at in a vacuum, but only in the context of the full range of urban problems and demands for resources. --Jonathan On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Craig Townsend wrote: > Craig and Brendan, > > While I agree that the functioning of Vietnam's motorcycle-based > urban transport systems are rather remarkable, we should not overlook the > incredibly high transport related injuries and deaths. According to data > collected on 100 cities worldwide in 1995, in terms of transport > deaths per passenger kilometre of motorized travel, Ho Chi Minh City ranked > worst out of 100 cities from developing and developed countries. These numbers > have grown far worse over the last 10 years (rougly a four fold increase), and > the road toll (which have become the leading cause chilrens' deaths in > Vietnam) is now a major concern of the government of Vietnam and the World > Health Organisation. > > Craig Townsend > > Quoting Brendan Finn : > > > Craig, > > > > I agree with your assessment. I visited Hanoi last year. After the initial > > shock of the waves of two-wheelers, I began to understand that it really > > does flow, sort of like a large shoal of fish, Each individual really does > > have a sense of those around them, and behaves in a quite predictable way. > > It's also clear that while they may look chaotic, each rider does behave in > > a collision-avoidance mode. I did not once observe a collision or anyone > > falling off their bicycle to avoid a collision. It's the first time I had > > come across such level of two-wheeler use, and it was obvious that it works > > really well. > > > > My observation was that all forms of two-wheelers (even those with 12-foot > > pipes!) can interact very well with each other. Further, pedestrians can > > quite easily cross the flows, as long as you time it reasonably well and > > behave predictably (my initially-terrified wife agreed on this one, > > eventually). > > > > However, the introduction of even one car into this changed the picture > > dramatically. The scale of the car makes it a blockage, and the driving > > style means that it barges its way through, unwilling or unable to interact > > sensitively with the two-wheelers. I do not believe that cars and > > two-wheelers on Hanoi scale can interact safely. > > > > I didn't come to a conclusion about buses. Because there are far fewer of > > them than cars, they are highly visible, and they drive slowly in a > > predictable (albeit unyielding) way, it seems that a certain number of buses > > can be absorbed in the flow of two-wheelers. > > > > My personal opinion is that as a pedestrian I was far safer crossing the > > streets of down-town Hanoi than almost any where else I have been. > > Nonetheless, I believe that the promoters of automobiles will win, and that > > very shortly two-wheeler travel will have become extremely dangerous due to > > the number of cars. Since it is the mode of availability and affordability > > for over 95% of Vietnamese, they will continue to use it and will suffer > > high rates of casualty. > > > > > > Brendan Finn, > > ETTS, Ireland. > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Craig August Johnson" > > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > > Cc: ; "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:28 AM > > Subject: [sustran] Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam > > > > > > > In terms of motorcycle use in Southeast Asia, I think there are examples > > > of how motorbikes have provided a viable alternative to an auto-based > > > urban transportation system. In Vietnam, while the high rate of motorcycle > > > usage (60% of traffic is on motorbikes) has displaced pedestrians from the > > > streets. High numbers of motorbikes have been able to coexist quite well > > > with high usage of bikes (30% of traffic is on bicycles). This has > > > contributed to a dynamic high energy street life that is quite different > > > than a more pedestrian-centered street life, but still viable. Sure there > > > are a greater number of collisions between > > > motorbikes-pedestrians-bicycles, but these collisions are usually not > > > fatal, and are rarely treated as accidents. Most of the road fatalities in > > > Vietnam happen on highways and not in the cities. > > > > > > Given the speed and the scope of motorization in Vietnam, the negative > > > impacts of motorization that one acutely experience in America such as > > > sprawl, smog, congestion, and the social inequality arising from > > > inadequate public mass transportation are not found in Vietnamese cities > > > for the following reasons: > > > > > > 1. Motorcycles pollute far less than cars- especially four stroke engine > > > motorcycles. An 80cc four-stroke engine scooter can get 85-90 miles per > > > gallon much better than a typical car at around 30 mpg. Also, there are > > > many viable electric scooters on the market that are zero emissions. > > > > > > 2. Parking is not a big issue for motorcycles. Vietnamese cities are > > > incredibly dense, thus allowing cities to become quite dense and still > > > relatively uncongested given the high density. > > > > > > 3. While riding a motorbike, one has much greater connection to the > > > surrounding street. One is not able to control the personal environment > > > like in a car, so the importance of street life and streetscape are not > > > lost by the increase in motorbikes. > > > > > > 4. Motorcycles are cheaper than cars making motorbikes a more equitable > > > form of individual motorized transportation. In Vietnam, the price of a > > > car is 15x the price of a motorbike. As a result Vietnam has a rate of > > > around 300 motor vehicles/1000 people. This is on par with many > > > industrialized European countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands. > > > Motorbikes have given all the benefits of owning private vehicle such as > > > personal mobility, speed, and no wait time while still being quite > > > affordable. > > > > > > 5. Motorbikes do not take up as much space on the road. In Hanoi there is > > > less than .17 km of auto-accessible road length per 1000 residents. This > > > compares drastically to New York which is 9.97km and Singapore which is > > > .98km per 1000 residents. > > > > > > Indeed, Vietnamese cities have been able to economically develop at great > > > speed, partly because the cities have not had to build an auto-based road > > > infrastructure. Now, though Vietnam is building the road infrastructure > > > with funding from World Bank and JBIC, and the increase in cars that is > > > now occurring in Vietnam will contribute much more to traffic > > > fatalities/congestion/pollution/sprawl/and social inequality than > > > motorbikes. Like Eric said, the pro-auto policies are having a much more > > > detrimental effect than the huge increase in motorbikes. > > > > > > > > > Craig Johnson > > > > > > Much of the statistics quoted were from both a JICA transportation study > > > in Hanoi, augmented with personal data collected this last summer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I certainly have to agree that there are too many aggressive > > motorcyclists > > > > in Athens and far too many large, semi-legal street racers without > > proper > > > > mufflers. I also agree that most current motorcycles pollute too much, > > as > > > > they don't use the latest technology. > > > > > > > > However, a total ban is ridiculous. Some things to consider. First, they > > > > need far less parking space, one of the reasons for their popularity. > > > > Second, they are far more fuel efficient than all but the smallest > > autos, > > > > unless these autos operate full, which they almost never do. Third, > > small > > > > motorcycles get run over by cars in the developing countries in large > > > > numbers. And the people riding them are not in the same income class as > > > > those who own the cars. > > > > > > > > But here is one of my main points. Yes, there are too many motorcycles > > on > > > > the road in some places, especially in southeast Asia. But, lets look at > > > > why. They have fast growing economies and work sites that are > > increasingly > > > > far away. Yet these countries have substandard public transportation, as > > > > governments (and the World Bank) have prioritized auto facilities > > instead. > > > > What would you do if you could save enough money to buy a motorcycle? > > > > Blame > > > > a lot of the problem on pro-auto policies. > > > > > > > > The other main point is to consider the alternative. Would you rather > > have > > > > merchants and couriers shipping their goods around on space-conserving, > > > > low-polluting, well-muffled, and energy-conserving smaller motorcycles, > > or > > > > in cars and trucks? Motorcycles can have their place if public policy > > is > > > > sensible. To the extent they displace pedestrians, bicycles, or buses, > > > > motorcycles will be bad. To the extent they displace autos and trucks, > > > > they > > > > will be good. > > > > > > > > We have a similar discussion in the US. The Segway company has a slick > > > > propaganda campaign saying how these motorized vehicles will displace > > cars > > > > on short trips. I am skeptical. What they will probably do is displace > > > > pedestrian and bicycle trips while promoting obesity, electricity > > > > consumption, and broken toes. Yet, if they can actually be put in role > > > > where > > > > they genuinely reduce auto or truck traffic, I will support them. > > > > > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "K. Tsourlakis" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:45 AM > > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: WHO report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> At 05:59 ?? 15/4/2004 +0300, you wrote: > > > >> > > > >> >..................................... > > > >> >At the IFRTD Executive Committee meeting in November 2003 we had > > > >> >a considered discussion on road safety. It would seem to me that > > > >> >road traffic injuries are correlated with the increase in high > > > >> >speed road networks and increased motorisation. The 'vulnerable > > > >> >road users' (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists - and perhaps > > > >> >other non-motorised transport users ) are the most at risk but > > > >> >perhaps also the least likely to benefit from motorisation and > > > >> >highways. So, from the perspective of reducing vulnerability of > > > >> >poor people, do we not also need a road traffic injury prevention > > > >> >strategy that questions the dominant paradigm of high speed > > > >> >motorisation? > > > >> >..................................... > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Motorcyclists are NOT non-motorised transport users. Bunching up > > > > motorcyclists next to pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised > > > > transport users is a HUGE logical and methodological mistake. And > > > > motorcyclists DO benefit from motorisation and highways. Especially > > > > benefited are the larger ones, bought (at least to some extent) always > > as > > > > entertainment toys (e.g. the only use of 70HP, 80HP, 100HP - or even > > more > > > > - > > > > motorcycle power is to break speed limits) - but smaller ones have > > > > certainly > > > > their share too. > > > >> > > > >> Actually motorcycles pollute like cars do (even electrical ones pollute > > > > indirectly), are noisy (usually more than cars), kill pedestrians and > > > > their > > > > users (at a rate 10-40 times more frequently than cars do) and are not > > > > usable (not even as mere passengers like cars are) from a large part of > > > > the > > > > population (the most vulnerable one: babies, visually and kinetically > > > > impaired, elderlies etc). > > > >> > > > >> Overuse of cars has certainly destroyed world cities and brought about > > > > many problems - it is trivial and needless to mention them on a list > > like > > > > this one. However there may exist a place even for them in an ideal and > > > > rationally designed transport system - e.g. in sparsely populated areas, > > > > for > > > > the transport of people on special needs, or under some particular forms > > > > like the controversial caresharing scheme. But what advantage would > > > > motorcycle present over bicycle use, combined with proper mass transport > > > > (bike racks, train facilites for bikes etc) for longer distances? Has > > > > anybody ever thought if the total ban of motorcycle were a better > > solution > > > > to the vulnerability and the rest of the problems they present? > > > >> > > > >> In Greece motorcycle use has contributed (perhaps more than cars) to > > the > > > > oppression of pedestrians, the miserable situation of the public spaces > > of > > > > the city and the environmental and healthy problems (you may take a look > > > > at > > > > http://www.pezh.gr/english/photo4.htm ). Because of the deliberate > > > > encouragement of motorcycle use through a number of privileges (the last > > > > one > > > > is the right to use legally dedicated bus lanes) their number > > proliferated > > > > (in Athens their number is estimated to 1 mil - compared to 2 mil. of > > > > cars) > > > > while they are used only by a small (but mostly fanatical and > > politically > > > > influential) part of the population and contribute according to studies > > > > less > > > > than 8% to the total mobility. I am sure there are similar "horror > > > > stories" > > > > about motorcycles from Asia cities. Anybody to speak up? > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > > > _________ > > > >> http://www.mailbox.gr ????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? e-mail. > > > >> http://www.thesuperweb.gr Website ?? ??????? Controlpanel ??? 6 Euro > > ??? > > > > ???? ?? domain ???! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From richmond at alum.mit.edu Sun Apr 25 15:49:05 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 13:49:05 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: <011001c42a44$5b095ee0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> References: <20040423043721.E86842C259@list.jca.apc.org> <011001c42a44$5b095ee0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Message-ID: On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Brendan Finn wrote: > Jonathon, > > Taking Bangkok as an example, is there any practical way to provide bus > services on a commercial basis at fares affordable to the poor with anything > other than low-quality, low-cost buses ? I do not know yet. I expect this to be a subject of my research this summer. One of my students is also going to be working on issues of transit industry cost structures, so I hope to have some data later in the year, although -- given the difficulties of pinning down anything of a facual nature in this environment -- I cannot say that I will have anything worthy of forming firm conclusions. If there is, I'd like to hear it, > since it seems to be an intractable puzzle in many countries. > > My experience in the CIS is that you can cover direct operating costs of old > vehicles at low fares. To move to a new vehicle - however basic - requires a > premium fare compared to the "social" fare. In part this reflects the high > cost of capital, linked to low security of tenure on the route, and hence > higher interest both to reflect the risk and the lack of financial weight of > the borrower. In greater part, though, is the relative cost of hard assets > compared to the fares income. In Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, I have > seen no shortage of takers for the premium fare services, which offer a much > higher quality of service in the eyes of the users - a seat, speed, > cleanliness, and much less unwanted proximity (especially for women). Of > course, this leaves the social travel and the poorest with the low-cost > services, leading them inexorably down the sinkhole. Exactly: and in Bangkok I think you will find that this group accounts for a very large share of the population and -- particularly -- of the transit-using population. > > I find myself agreeing with others that BRT in itself should not have > negative impact on low-cost services, unless they are excluded from it > simply because they are deemed not modern enough. In that case the fault is > not BRT but the implemented policies. However, those policies are the central issue. If BRT is used as an excuse to increase fares, then the poor will be excluded and likely left on nonaircon buses stuck in congestion outside the busways. But there is a very valid case to > exclude rustbuckets and unroadworthy vehicles. There is also a very good > case to exclude stopping services where they hamper the flow of other bus > services. Stopping services are also the ones most used by low income people who have no alternative for a whole range of day-to-day travel needs. Relatively higher-income people will prefer the non-stop services which take htem to central work destinations and will have cars available for non-work trips. > > I guess a factor to take into account is whether the economy and people's > wages and living conditions are in transition. It is reasonable to aim to > transform the public transport services to better quality in line with the > improvements experienced in other walks of life, and to charge more for it. > I think that BRT could have an important role in improving bus functionality in Bangkok, but I also think that much more of a basic nature needs to be done first to bring discipline to bus operations and basic levels of quality to services as a whole. Political issues do have to be incorporated into planning -- they are generally neglected by Western consultants, and that is a prime cause of dysfunctionality in the implementation which ensues. My concern is for the lowest-income users, who constitute the largest group but who are the most liable to be left out when any kind of modernization program comes into effect --Jonathan > With best wishes, > > > Brendan Finn, > ETTS, Ireland. > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" > To: ; "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 8:46 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer > > > > > > Karl, I am not really talking about differences between the 4 baht and 5 > > baht buses (the 5 baht blue/white ones also being nonaircon), but between > > the 4/5 baht buses and the 20 baht aircon ones. I am planning to get some > > hard data, such as is available, over the summer, but the very fact that > > the nonaircon buses run on the same routes as aircon ones and that crowds > > of people will wait for the cheaper services to save money suggests that > > price is an issue in choosing bus services as much as between bus and > rail. > > > > You will remember that the government representative at the recent UN > > conference on BRT explicitly said he was not interested in keeping low > > fares should premium services be provided. The trend in Thailand has been > to > > provide extremely low-quality services for the poor at low fares and to > > price anything else much higher. It is politically difficult to increase > the > > cost of existing services, and there is a strong constituency for the 4 > > baht fare, but we have seen that when new services are introduced -- > > whether on the Skytrain, underground or with aircon buses, the > > opportunity is taken to charge much more: amounts which are far beyond > > the ability of people of low income to pay. > > > > I am not saying BRT programs are bad -- they would bring important > > benefits to Bangkok -- but I am warning that they may not be for the > > masses as implemented in a Thai context. > > > > I am going to have to get you to come and speak to my students at AIT > > before long!!! > > > > Best, > > > > --Jonathan > > > > ----- > > > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > > Transportation Engineering program > > School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) > > Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 > > PO Box 4 > > Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) > > Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 > > > > e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > > Intl: 662 524-6051 > > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > > > > > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk Mon Apr 26 05:54:12 2004 From: alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk (Alan P Howes) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:54:12 +0100 Subject: [sustran] UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway Message-ID: That's two people now who have asked about the above. Most of the coverage I have seen of this is in the UK specialist magazines Local Transport Today and Transit - neither of which publish on-line. Though I will see if I can find an article to scan. There's some fairly good coverage though, on the BBC website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3651587.stm Useful links to follow too. Another source is the UK Department for Transport website. It's big, and I haven't yet found a definitive article. But if you take a look at - http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0170 [UK DfT > Home > Local Transport > Local transport plan - process and initiatives > Local transport capital settlements > Local transport plans settlement - December 2003] you will find details of DfT capital grants for local transport. Lots of busways - no trams! If you dig around on the DfT site you might find more. Then, hot off the press (April 23rd) there is a report from the UK National Audit Office at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm I haven't had time as yet to read the exec summary, let alone the full report. But basically it is pointing out the fact that tram schemes in the UK have mostly fallen short of meeting planned performance, and looks at why. Regards, Alan -- Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] From ericbruun at earthlink.net Mon Apr 26 07:09:06 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 23:09:06 +0100 (GMT+01:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway Message-ID: <25607389.1082930946948.JavaMail.root@dewey.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Normally, I just read and learn from this discussion group. But this is the second time in the recent past that I simply have to say something. The UK is a very special case. The Central Government's definition of what is good performance is not the same as in Europe or in North America. Because of the Private Finance Initiative, the rates of return required are higher than for public projects. Projects also might be based on the investors getting some of the fare revenue. The Croydon Tramlink in London would be considered a success elsewhere, but it is not a financial success for the private investors through no fault of their own. Transport for London sensibly is introducing Smart Cards with integrated fares, so that there are fewer fares collected than anticipated, but the investors are not being compensated for this change of plans. This experience is causing potential investors to be cautious. It is not helped by the fact that the Government doesn't allow coordination with bus networks so that there may be massive duplicative service. The last two issues of Urban Transport International have had interesting articles about this. I would not rely only on the Government's viewpoint. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- From: Alan P Howes Sent: Apr 25, 2004 9:54 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Cc: Jerry Schneider Subject: [sustran] UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway That's two people now who have asked about the above. Most of the coverage I have seen of this is in the UK specialist magazines Local Transport Today and Transit - neither of which publish on-line. Though I will see if I can find an article to scan. There's some fairly good coverage though, on the BBC website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3651587.stm Useful links to follow too. Another source is the UK Department for Transport website. It's big, and I haven't yet found a definitive article. But if you take a look at - http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0170 [UK DfT > Home > Local Transport > Local transport plan - process and initiatives > Local transport capital settlements > Local transport plans settlement - December 2003] you will find details of DfT capital grants for local transport. Lots of busways - no trams! If you dig around on the DfT site you might find more. Then, hot off the press (April 23rd) there is a report from the UK National Audit Office at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm I haven't had time as yet to read the exec summary, let alone the full report. But basically it is pointing out the fact that tram schemes in the UK have mostly fallen short of meeting planned performance, and looks at why. Regards, Alan -- Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Mon Apr 26 12:42:18 2004 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:42:18 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam Message-ID: <1082950938.408c851a81e66@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> Brendan, Those are excellent questions which we can't really address with the aggregate data. (Actually, this would seem to be a ripe research agenda - the question of what constitutes "inherent safety" levels!) Some classification of the types and attributed causes of accidents would be required. That so many of the victims are children would suggest that it's not just guys racing at night, but that's just speculation on my part. As for questions of traffic mixing, I recently read a paper (Zacharias, John. 2003. The search for sustainable transport: The case of Tianjin, International Development Planning Review, 25:3, pp. 283-299) which suggests that in Tianjin a high level of self-regulation of different sized vehicles (include bikes and cars) is achieved. There seems to be agreement that if alcohol and excessive speed are involved in motor vehicle accidents, then enforcement of laws prohibiting those behaviours would help. I can't speak about Vietnam, but in Thailand which I know relatively well, that would involve a complete overhaul of the policing and legal system to have police officers enforce an agreed-upon set of traffic laws and penalities evenly across social groups and through formal channels. Cheers, Craig Quoting Brendan Finn : > Craig, > > For the high level of transport deaths in Ho Chi Minh City, I wonder how > many of them were four+ wheelers against 2-wheelers or pedestrians, and how > many were wallies-on-wheels that would manage to kill themselves in any > scenario (as in Thailand during the annual festival). It would be > interesting to know whether the inherent safety of two-wheelers and > pedestrians (excluding the wild boys) is low, medium or high. > > It seems to me that two-wheeler and pedestrian traffic in itself is safe, > but it just cannot co-exist with larger vehicles. And since the latter are > determined to be on the streets, gentler forms of transport must be removed > for their own safety. > > With best wishes, > > > Brendan Finn, > ETTS, Ireland. > _______________________________________________________________________ > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Craig Townsend" > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:54 PM > Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam > > > > Craig and Brendan, > > > > While I agree that the functioning of Vietnam's motorcycle-based > > urban transport systems are rather remarkable, we should not overlook the > > incredibly high transport related injuries and deaths. According to data > > collected on 100 cities worldwide in 1995, in terms of transport > > deaths per passenger kilometre of motorized travel, Ho Chi Minh City > ranked > > worst out of 100 cities from developing and developed countries. These > numbers > > have grown far worse over the last 10 years (rougly a four fold increase), > and > > the road toll (which have become the leading cause chilrens' deaths in > > Vietnam) is now a major concern of the government of Vietnam and the World > > Health Organisation. > > > > Craig Townsend > > > > Quoting Brendan Finn : > > > > > Craig, > > > > > > I agree with your assessment. I visited Hanoi last year. After the > initial > > > shock of the waves of two-wheelers, I began to understand that it really > > > does flow, sort of like a large shoal of fish, Each individual really > does > > > have a sense of those around them, and behaves in a quite predictable > way. > > > It's also clear that while they may look chaotic, each rider does behave > in > > > a collision-avoidance mode. I did not once observe a collision or anyone > > > falling off their bicycle to avoid a collision. It's the first time I > had > > > come across such level of two-wheeler use, and it was obvious that it > works > > > really well. > > > > > > My observation was that all forms of two-wheelers (even those with > 12-foot > > > pipes!) can interact very well with each other. Further, pedestrians can > > > quite easily cross the flows, as long as you time it reasonably well and > > > behave predictably (my initially-terrified wife agreed on this one, > > > eventually). > > > > > > However, the introduction of even one car into this changed the picture > > > dramatically. The scale of the car makes it a blockage, and the driving > > > style means that it barges its way through, unwilling or unable to > interact > > > sensitively with the two-wheelers. I do not believe that cars and > > > two-wheelers on Hanoi scale can interact safely. > > > > > > I didn't come to a conclusion about buses. Because there are far fewer > of > > > them than cars, they are highly visible, and they drive slowly in a > > > predictable (albeit unyielding) way, it seems that a certain number of > buses > > > can be absorbed in the flow of two-wheelers. > > > > > > My personal opinion is that as a pedestrian I was far safer crossing the > > > streets of down-town Hanoi than almost any where else I have been. > > > Nonetheless, I believe that the promoters of automobiles will win, and > that > > > very shortly two-wheeler travel will have become extremely dangerous due > to > > > the number of cars. Since it is the mode of availability and > affordability > > > for over 95% of Vietnamese, they will continue to use it and will suffer > > > high rates of casualty. > > > > > > > > > Brendan Finn, > > > ETTS, Ireland. > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Craig August Johnson" > > > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > > > > Cc: ; "Asia and the Pacific sustainable > transport" > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:28 AM > > > Subject: [sustran] Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam > > > > > > > > > > In terms of motorcycle use in Southeast Asia, I think there are > examples > > > > of how motorbikes have provided a viable alternative to an auto-based > > > > urban transportation system. In Vietnam, while the high rate of > motorcycle > > > > usage (60% of traffic is on motorbikes) has displaced pedestrians from > the > > > > streets. High numbers of motorbikes have been able to coexist quite > well > > > > with high usage of bikes (30% of traffic is on bicycles). This has > > > > contributed to a dynamic high energy street life that is quite > different > > > > than a more pedestrian-centered street life, but still viable. Sure > there > > > > are a greater number of collisions between > > > > motorbikes-pedestrians-bicycles, but these collisions are usually not > > > > fatal, and are rarely treated as accidents. Most of the road > fatalities in > > > > Vietnam happen on highways and not in the cities. > > > > > > > > Given the speed and the scope of motorization in Vietnam, the negative > > > > impacts of motorization that one acutely experience in America such as > > > > sprawl, smog, congestion, and the social inequality arising from > > > > inadequate public mass transportation are not found in Vietnamese > cities > > > > for the following reasons: > > > > > > > > 1. Motorcycles pollute far less than cars- especially four stroke > engine > > > > motorcycles. An 80cc four-stroke engine scooter can get 85-90 miles > per > > > > gallon much better than a typical car at around 30 mpg. Also, there > are > > > > many viable electric scooters on the market that are zero emissions. > > > > > > > > 2. Parking is not a big issue for motorcycles. Vietnamese cities are > > > > incredibly dense, thus allowing cities to become quite dense and > still > > > > relatively uncongested given the high density. > > > > > > > > 3. While riding a motorbike, one has much greater connection to the > > > > surrounding street. One is not able to control the personal > environment > > > > like in a car, so the importance of street life and streetscape are > not > > > > lost by the increase in motorbikes. > > > > > > > > 4. Motorcycles are cheaper than cars making motorbikes a more > equitable > > > > form of individual motorized transportation. In Vietnam, the price of > a > > > > car is 15x the price of a motorbike. As a result Vietnam has a rate of > > > > around 300 motor vehicles/1000 people. This is on par with many > > > > industrialized European countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands. > > > > Motorbikes have given all the benefits of owning private vehicle such > as > > > > personal mobility, speed, and no wait time while still being quite > > > > affordable. > > > > > > > > 5. Motorbikes do not take up as much space on the road. In Hanoi there > is > > > > less than .17 km of auto-accessible road length per 1000 residents. > This > > > > compares drastically to New York which is 9.97km and Singapore which > is > > > > .98km per 1000 residents. > > > > > > > > Indeed, Vietnamese cities have been able to economically develop at > great > > > > speed, partly because the cities have not had to build an auto-based > road > > > > infrastructure. Now, though Vietnam is building the road > infrastructure > > > > with funding from World Bank and JBIC, and the increase in cars that > is > > > > now occurring in Vietnam will contribute much more to traffic > > > > fatalities/congestion/pollution/sprawl/and social inequality than > > > > motorbikes. Like Eric said, the pro-auto policies are having a much > more > > > > detrimental effect than the huge increase in motorbikes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Craig Johnson > > > > > > > > Much of the statistics quoted were from both a JICA transportation > study > > > > in Hanoi, augmented with personal data collected this last summer > > > From townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au Mon Apr 26 13:06:05 2004 From: townsend at central.murdoch.edu.au (Craig Townsend) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:06:05 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: References: <20040423043721.E86842C259@list.jca.apc.org> <011001c42a44$5b095ee0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Message-ID: <1082952365.408c8aadf2365@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> Jonathan, I agree, but the lack of attention to political factors by consultants has a lot to do with who they are working for. Also, discussion of political questions which could lead to an examination of who holds power and how (and questions about winners and losers) is generally excluded from consultancies which involve bilateral or multilateral development assistance. In the case of the World Bank, Article IV of its Articles of Association clearly states this: "The bank and its officers shall not interfere in the political affairs of any member; nor shall they be influenced in their decisions by the political characteristics of the member or members concerned. Only economic considerations shall be relevant to their decisions, and these considerations shall be weighted impartially" It is also very difficult to conduct research on a topic like the politics of bus service costs in Bangkok because there are powerful people who collect rents from each route and identifying them could be dangerous for the researcher! > I think that BRT could have an important role in improving bus > functionality in Bangkok, but I also think that much more of a basic > nature needs to be done first to bring discipline to bus operations and > basic levels of quality to services as a whole. Political issues do have > to be incorporated into planning -- they are generally neglected by > Western consultants, and that is a prime cause of dysfunctionality in the > implementation which ensues. My concern is for the lowest-income users, > who constitute the largest group but who are the most liable to be left > out when any kind of modernization program comes into effect --Jonathan > Craig From richmond at alum.mit.edu Mon Apr 26 13:08:01 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:08:01 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway In-Reply-To: <25607389.1082930946948.JavaMail.root@dewey.psp.pas.earthlink.net> References: <25607389.1082930946948.JavaMail.root@dewey.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: On what basis would the Croydon Tramlink be considered "a success." I believe we must systematically weight the alternatives before we can define success. Have you seen my article on "A Whole-System Approach? (review of US light rail and critique of evaluation methods) --Jonathan On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > > Normally, I just read and learn from this discussion group. But this is the second time in the recent past that I simply have to say something. > > The UK is a very special case. The Central Government's definition of what is good performance is not the same as in Europe or in North America. Because of the Private Finance Initiative, the rates of return required are higher than for public projects. Projects also might be based on the investors getting some of the fare revenue. The Croydon Tramlink in London would be considered a success elsewhere, but it is not a financial success for the private investors through no fault of their own. Transport for London sensibly is introducing Smart Cards with integrated fares, so that there are fewer fares collected than anticipated, but the investors are not being compensated for this change of plans. > > This experience is causing potential investors to be cautious. It is not helped by the fact that the Government doesn't allow coordination with bus networks so that there may be massive duplicative service. > > The last two issues of Urban Transport International have had interesting articles about this. I would not rely only on the Government's viewpoint. > > Eric Bruun > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan P Howes > Sent: Apr 25, 2004 9:54 PM > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Cc: Jerry Schneider > Subject: [sustran] UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > That's two people now who have asked about the above. Most of the > coverage I have seen of this is in the UK specialist magazines Local > Transport Today and Transit - neither of which publish on-line. > Though I will see if I can find an article to scan. > > There's some fairly good coverage though, on the BBC website at > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3651587.stm Useful links to follow too. > > Another source is the UK Department for Transport website. It's big, > and I haven't yet found a definitive article. But if you take a look > at - > http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0170 > [UK DfT > Home > Local Transport > Local transport plan - process and > initiatives > Local transport capital settlements > Local transport > plans settlement - December 2003] > you will find details of DfT capital grants for local transport. Lots > of busways - no trams! If you dig around on the DfT site you might > find more. > > Then, hot off the press (April 23rd) there is a report from the UK > National Audit Office at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm > > I haven't had time as yet to read the exec summary, let alone the full > report. But basically it is pointing out the fact that tram schemes > in the UK have mostly fallen short of meeting planned performance, and > looks at why. > > Regards, Alan > -- > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From karl at dnet.net.id Mon Apr 26 13:59:21 2004 From: karl at dnet.net.id (Karl Fjellstrom) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:59:21 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: <1082952365.408c8aadf2365@wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au> Message-ID: <20040426050033.E9BE82C2CA@list.jca.apc.org> I'd like to just reply on the issue of bus sector reform studies in Bangkok, because have been involved recently with this. The consultants who I've been familiar with who worked on bus sector reform in Bangkok were well attuned to the political realities. Many of them speak Thai and were based in Thailand for many years. Also, several of the bus sector reform studies have also been done by Thai companies and consultants. I think it largely misses the point to say that the reason bus sector reform (not talking here about other areas) studies in Bangkok aren't implemented is because the consultants don't understand the local situation. As Craig points out the consultants are constrained in what they can write, but even this does not I think go the whole way in explaining why reforms aren't implemented. I'm also not convinced that corruption is the main obstacle to reform. After all, if the bus sector is revitalised, highly profitable, and growing (the opposite to the current situation), this will mean much more money around for everybody. Rather, my own speculation on why reforms haven't been implemented is that the proposed reforms have not been something 'exciting' which the policy-makers could latch onto. The problem with the recommendations to date - all technically very sensible - was that they mostly involved far reaching but necessary bus sector reforms which were politically very difficult (e.g. restructuring the state operator BMTA which has 20,000 employees, combine that with 4 dependents per employee and you have a large constituency...) to implement, but which had a political 'payback' which was not particulary quick or crystal clear to them. This is a major reason for recent efforts at promotion of BRT in Bangkok as opposed to developing yet more unimplemented proposals for 'incremental' bus sector reforms. Best rgds, Karl PS: Actually there's some good data and recent studies on bus operating costs in Bangkok, including a recent study by Chulalongkorn University. Though Craig's right that it does get sensitive when one delves into things like maintenance costs at the state owned operator and why they are so much higher than a market rate would suggest. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+karl=dnet.net.id@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Craig Townsend Sent: Monday, 26 April 2004 11:06 AM To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer Jonathan, I agree, but the lack of attention to political factors by consultants has a lot to do with who they are working for. Also, discussion of political questions which could lead to an examination of who holds power and how (and questions about winners and losers) is generally excluded from consultancies which involve bilateral or multilateral development assistance. In the case of the World Bank, Article IV of its Articles of Association clearly states this: "The bank and its officers shall not interfere in the political affairs of any member; nor shall they be influenced in their decisions by the political characteristics of the member or members concerned. Only economic considerations shall be relevant to their decisions, and these considerations shall be weighted impartially" It is also very difficult to conduct research on a topic like the politics of bus service costs in Bangkok because there are powerful people who collect rents from each route and identifying them could be dangerous for the researcher! > I think that BRT could have an important role in improving bus > functionality in Bangkok, but I also think that much more of a basic > nature needs to be done first to bring discipline to bus operations > and basic levels of quality to services as a whole. Political issues > do have to be incorporated into planning -- they are generally > neglected by Western consultants, and that is a prime cause of > dysfunctionality in the implementation which ensues. My concern is for > the lowest-income users, who constitute the largest group but who are > the most liable to be left out when any kind of modernization program > comes into effect --Jonathan > Craig From Aurora_Fe_Ables/Consultants/ADB at adb.org Mon Apr 26 16:27:30 2004 From: Aurora_Fe_Ables/Consultants/ADB at adb.org (Aurora_Fe_Ables/Consultants/ADB@adb.org) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:27:30 +0800 Subject: [sustran] (no subject) Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040426/f463df3d/attachment.html From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Mon Apr 26 18:20:34 2004 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:20:34 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway Message-ID: I never suggested anyone should rely on the UK government's viewpoint (I gave that up myself a long time ago). I gave the information so that people could find out why the UK government is doing what it is doing. My own view, FWIW, is that UK government policy has switched from being too much pro-tram to being too much anti-tram - such abrupt policy changes are not helpful, but are unfortunately all too common. But I also feel that where cash for transport investment is scarce, as is often the case in the developing world (but should NOT be the case in the UK which is crying out for better transport infrastructure), bus-based systems can often offer better value for money than rail-based ones. An over-short summary of my views, but I don't have time for more at present. Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan and Partners 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 240 2892 (direct) (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email. Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of CBP, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. _______________________________ >>> Eric Bruun 25/04/04 23:09:06 >>> Normally, I just read and learn from this discussion group. But this is the second time in the recent past that I simply have to say something. The UK is a very special case. The Central Government's definition of what is good performance is not the same as in Europe or in North America. Because of the Private Finance Initiative, the rates of return required are higher than for public projects. Projects also might be based on the investors getting some of the fare revenue. The Croydon Tramlink in London would be considered a success elsewhere, but it is not a financial success for the private investors through no fault of their own. Transport for London sensibly is introducing Smart Cards with integrated fares, so that there are fewer fares collected than anticipated, but the investors are not being compensated for this change of plans. This experience is causing potential investors to be cautious. It is not helped by the fact that the Government doesn't allow coordination with bus networks so that there may be massive duplicative service. The last two issues of Urban Transport International have had interesting articles about this. I would not rely only on the Government's viewpoint. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- From: Alan P Howes Sent: Apr 25, 2004 9:54 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Cc: Jerry Schneider Subject: [sustran] UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway That's two people now who have asked about the above. Most of the coverage I have seen of this is in the UK specialist magazines Local Transport Today and Transit - neither of which publish on-line. Though I will see if I can find an article to scan. There's some fairly good coverage though, on the BBC website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3651587.stm Useful links to follow too. Another source is the UK Department for Transport website. It's big, and I haven't yet found a definitive article. But if you take a look at - http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0170 [UK DfT > Home > Local Transport > Local transport plan - process and initiatives > Local transport capital settlements > Local transport plans settlement - December 2003] you will find details of DfT capital grants for local transport. Lots of busways - no trams! If you dig around on the DfT site you might find more. Then, hot off the press (April 23rd) there is a report from the UK National Audit Office at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm I haven't had time as yet to read the exec summary, let alone the full report. But basically it is pointing out the fact that tram schemes in the UK have mostly fallen short of meeting planned performance, and looks at why. Regards, Alan -- Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] From etts at indigo.ie Mon Apr 26 18:40:38 2004 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:40:38 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway References: Message-ID: <007c01c42b72$890aa9a0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> For what it's worth : In Dublin we will soon have two new tram/LRT lines in operation. The UK National Audit seems to have triggered a little freedom of information here. The Rail Procurement Agency (RPA) has entered into a contract with CONNEX who will operate the system. We are told that this contract will have a value of 20 million Euro per year. We are also told that the forecast carryings are 20 million passengers per year, and the forecast revenue (collected by RPA) is 20 million Euro per year. Following the UK National Audit, the RPA has assured us that the forecasting was done to "international standards" - whatever these actually are. The "optimistic" forecast, therefore, is that revenues barely cover direct operating cost. "Optimistic" means that there is zero contribution to the 700 million Euro plus investment, zero contribution to the maintenance costs (not in the CONNEX contract), zero contribution to customer-facing services such as ticketing and information, and zero surplus for future development. Incredibly, that's the "optimistic" version based on the "international standard" forecasts. Forgive my cynicism as I point out that the capital investment on these two LRT lines is equivalent to 4 years total costs (note : full costs, not subsidy) for the bus network which always has and always will carry the vast majority of public transport passengers in Dublin. It is also about 10 times greater than the extensive and excellent Quality Bus Corridor Network which is well under way. Trams are very nice to use, and it was very considerate of previous generations to make the investments for many cities. They are truly a legacy to any city. However, transport professionals should maintain their integrity and not pretend either that they make economic sense or that they are the most effective mobility solution, especially when compared with the very best bus-based alternatives. With best wishes, Brendan Finn. _______________________________________________________________________ Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Howes" To: ">" Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:20 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway I never suggested anyone should rely on the UK government's viewpoint (I gave that up myself a long time ago). I gave the information so that people could find out why the UK government is doing what it is doing. My own view, FWIW, is that UK government policy has switched from being too much pro-tram to being too much anti-tram - such abrupt policy changes are not helpful, but are unfortunately all too common. But I also feel that where cash for transport investment is scarce, as is often the case in the developing world (but should NOT be the case in the UK which is crying out for better transport infrastructure), bus-based systems can often offer better value for money than rail-based ones. An over-short summary of my views, but I don't have time for more at present. Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan and Partners 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 240 2892 (direct) (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email. Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of CBP, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. _______________________________ >>> Eric Bruun 25/04/04 23:09:06 >>> Normally, I just read and learn from this discussion group. But this is the second time in the recent past that I simply have to say something. The UK is a very special case. The Central Government's definition of what is good performance is not the same as in Europe or in North America. Because of the Private Finance Initiative, the rates of return required are higher than for public projects. Projects also might be based on the investors getting some of the fare revenue. The Croydon Tramlink in London would be considered a success elsewhere, but it is not a financial success for the private investors through no fault of their own. Transport for London sensibly is introducing Smart Cards with integrated fares, so that there are fewer fares collected than anticipated, but the investors are not being compensated for this change of plans. This experience is causing potential investors to be cautious. It is not helped by the fact that the Government doesn't allow coordination with bus networks so that there may be massive duplicative service. The last two issues of Urban Transport International have had interesting articles about this. I would not rely only on the Government's viewpoint. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- From: Alan P Howes Sent: Apr 25, 2004 9:54 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Cc: Jerry Schneider Subject: [sustran] UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway That's two people now who have asked about the above. Most of the coverage I have seen of this is in the UK specialist magazines Local Transport Today and Transit - neither of which publish on-line. Though I will see if I can find an article to scan. There's some fairly good coverage though, on the BBC website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3651587.stm Useful links to follow too. Another source is the UK Department for Transport website. It's big, and I haven't yet found a definitive article. But if you take a look at - http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0170 [UK DfT > Home > Local Transport > Local transport plan - process and initiatives > Local transport capital settlements > Local transport plans settlement - December 2003] you will find details of DfT capital grants for local transport. Lots of busways - no trams! If you dig around on the DfT site you might find more. Then, hot off the press (April 23rd) there is a report from the UK National Audit Office at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm I haven't had time as yet to read the exec summary, let alone the full report. But basically it is pointing out the fact that tram schemes in the UK have mostly fallen short of meeting planned performance, and looks at why. Regards, Alan -- Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] From nguyenthienphu at yahoo.com Mon Apr 26 22:16:44 2004 From: nguyenthienphu at yahoo.com (Thien Phu Nguyen) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 06:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] motorcycles transportation Vietnam Message-ID: <20040426131644.20604.qmail@web41001.mail.yahoo.com> Hello everybody, I'm Vietnamese from Ho Chi Minh City. I find it very interesting to join Sustran forum. What you all mentioned about motorcycle transportation in Vietnam is true but I'd like to provide you with more precise information of the situation in Vietnam, particularly in Hanoi and HCM city. Here I'll talk about three points : initial improvement of public transportation in Vietnam, restriction of motorcycle use, personal view of a suitable transportation pattern in the vietnamese context. First of all, I must say that a lot of progress has recently been made. In Vietnam compared to some years ago, as Craig Townsend said, the bus public transportation is much better now. Up to now there are about 60 "model" bus routes out of 100 existing bus routes in Ho Chi Minh city. In 2003, there were 60 mil. passenger-trips on bus, or 3.2 times as much as the number of passenger-trips in 2002. In Hanoi, there are 40 bus routes all of which are the "model" ones. In 2003, according to the Hanoi bus company, 154 mil. passenger-trips on bus have been made (this number need to be checked), or an increase of 350% against 2002. Another good thing is that the bus for the first time after many years can go inside the the Tan Son Nhat airport and carry people to the city center. This is really a revolution because the airport authorities with the support of the central government only gave the monopoly to taxi service. Other good things have also been made as regards bus fare (before 2004 a bus ticket cost 1 000 dong , or about 0.06 $, now 2 000 dong but this fare level is still cheap and accepted by most passengers), service frequency, substitution of old bus by new ones. Parallel to this, the authorities carried out in 2003 a restriction of motorcycle use and tighten traffic rules. Registration fees related to buying a motorcycle are considerably augmented. One person is allowed to buying only one motocycle. A driver's licence is required for more than 50 cc displacement and the under 18-years-old are not allowed to used motorcycle of more than 50 cc displacement. Route policemen check more often driving papers and are encouraged to fine severely those who violate traffic rules. All these things really contribute to improving the traffic situation in the two cities in 2003. However, in order to make further improvements a lot of things need to be done, especially how to reduce the accident rate caused by motorcyclists. According to the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association, motorbikes are responsible for 73% of all road accidents in Vietnam. In Ho Chi Minh City alone, motorbike accidents make 1 000 deaths every year. This situation is really worrying. There are certainly some main causes of the very high rate of motorbike accidents in Vietnam. Firstly, the government doesn't impose compulsory helmet wearing, or more precisely, the government did do it in early 2001 but encountered the opposition of the majority of the population (!) (this is very strange in Vietnam I must say) and it dare not apply the measure again. Secondly, the route policemen don't apply strictly the traffic rules because they don't have any sense of responsibility at all or because they are corrupted. Inspite all this fact, I think that one cannot forbid totally the use of motorcycles but rather restrict it as the vietnamese authorities have done and do something in such a way that traffic regulations must be respected. In terms of travel patterns, my opinion is that it is necessary to have a complementary between the public transportation and motorcycle transportation and a balanced use of modes, as many experts and researchers recommended. It is impractical and impossible to favor a certain mode of transportation in cities. By the way, it is here pertinent to make clear two things : how to make motorcycle transportation safe and which mode should be encouraged. It is not because motorcycle transportation causes a lot of accidents that this mode should be banned. The use of motorcycle for mobility is one thing and the risk associated with using it is another thing. In this regard, I totally share the opinions of Jonathan and Craig Townsend. We should look at the whole picture. In Vietnam, motorcycle transportation is not only for poor people but also for the big majority of the population. It is a very convenient mode that provide a door to door transportation service. That explains why people in Vietnam make more trips those in other cities. The number of trips per person per day (including walking) in Ho Chi Minh City and in Hanoi is 3.0 and 2.6 respectively compared to 2.2 in Manila; 1.7 in Jakarta; 2.3 in Bangkok; 2.6 in Chendu; 2.3 in Tokyo (cf Second Seminar of the Study on Urban Transport Master Plan and Feasibility Study in HCM Metropolitan Area, ALMEC). Besides, it is should be noted that motorcycles become a popular mode in Vietnam for two important reasons : it has been the dream of the vietnamese for a long time since 1965 when the first Japanese motorcycle (Honda) was imported in Saigon and because the public transportation system collapsed both in Ho Chi Minh City and in Hanoi during the 1980s. So, it is right to affirm that the use of motorcycle should be continued but their usage must be strictly regulated and better conditions created for the the safety of motorcycle riders and other mode users, particularly pedestrians. I also wish that clean technology which is not very expensive be applied in order to reduce as much as possible the pollution level of motorcycles. If this can be done, I'll be strongly in favor of an urban transportation pattern with the dominant role of motorcycles in Vietnam. In the medium and long terms, the government should restrict the use of private cars as well. Where can we find more space if only 5% of the 2,3 millions of motorcycle users in Ho Chi Minh City switch to car usage, knowing that road space cannot be infinitely expanded ? The situation of Bangkok and other developing cities is a very good example that many and many experts and researchers often bring forward in urban transportation conferences or seminars organized somewhere in the world. Best regards, Thien Phu NGUYEN, Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam PS : for further information on motorcycle transportation, I think it is interesting to look at the recent research " A Comparative Study on Motorcycle Traffic Development in some Asian Countries - case of Taiwan, Malaysia and Vietnam" led by Dr. Hsu Tien-Pen at the website www.easts.info/icra.htm. ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash From richmond at alum.mit.edu Tue Apr 27 01:32:13 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:32:13 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway In-Reply-To: <007c01c42b72$890aa9a0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> References: <007c01c42b72$890aa9a0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Message-ID: The situation Brendan describes in Ireland seems to be almost universal. As I found in my work (and as Don Pickrell established before me), forecasts are overestimated, costs underestimated and -- more important -- there is a lack of realistic analysis of alternatives, which are assumed to be inferior from the start. Such analysis as takes place is usually biased: For example, a rail plus feeder bus network is compared to a bus only network, but the cost of the feeder buses is left out! In case any of you have not yet seen Randy O'Toole's response to Todd Litman, I am posting it below. I differ from Randy on his views of sprawl, and support the provision of public transport with public subsidies where appropriate, but I believe his analysis should be noted. My own analysis, (which I will be pleased to send anyone interested), shows that new rail projects in the US are a failure in every case except San Diego, and we do need to look at the record of such new projects to understand what is happening and not look at data for New York which really is not going to tell us much about the likelihood of success in rather different situations. --Jonathan ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 02:53:54 -0700 From: Randal O'Toole To: Todd Alexander Litman Subject: Re: Comprehensive Evaluation of Rail Transit Benefits - Released Tomorrow Dear Todd, Thank you for sending me an advance copy of your rail transit paper. I am sorry I haven't been able to review it until now. While our conference ended last Sunday, I was still entertaining speakers and doing other follow-up work through yesterday. While I do not have time to review every statement made in your paper, I would like to make some general comments. 1. NEW YORK DISTORTS DATA I like to say that the U.S. has two kinds of urban areas: New York and everywhere else. Nowhere else has a Manhattan with 52,000 people per square mile and (more important) 80,000 jobs per square mile. New York transit has more than twice the market share of the next leading region. Lumping New York in the transit data for any other group of urban areas (as you do in your discussion of "Large Rail cities" along with tables 1, 6, 7, and elsewhere in your report) produces distorted results that are not reflective of other regions. Because New York is so large and because it produces more than 5 times as many transit rides as the next-highest urban area (and 38 percent of all transit rides in the U.S.), the averages you get from lumping it with other regions will be unrealistically high for any other region. Similarly, the other six "Large Rail cities" are all older cities with high-density cores that have not been built elsewhere in the last century. While it is amazing that these regions have such low transit ridership compared with New York, any results for these six regions cannot be applied to newer regions such as Atlanta, Phoenix, and San Jose. These newer regions are just never going to look like Chicago or San Francisco. This is why I compared each region individually and didn't try to lump them together. 2. PER CAPITA TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IS NOT AN INDICATOR OF LIVABILITY Much of your report focuses on the allegedly high per capita transit ridership in rail regions. But why is this important? Even the fastest transit tends to be slower and (because it is not door-to-door) less convenient than the automobile. High levels of per capita ridership thus suggest lower levels of mobility. Perhaps this is because the city is so well designed that people don't need that mobility -- the Robert Cervero argument for accessibility rather than mobility. In fact, no urban area, with the possible exception of New York (really, only parts of New York) is designed to give people accessibility through transit. This means that high levels of per capita transit ridership probably mean lower levels of mobility, which in turn means higher housing costs, consumer costs, and other costs. 3. THE REPORT EMPHASIZES POINTS IN TIME WITHOUT SCRUTINIZING TRENDS Most of the indicators in Great Rail Disasters were trends: typically 1990 to 2000. Most of the indicators in your report represent single points in time. Rail regions, for example, may have high per capita transit ridership, but if transit commuting is declining while it is increasing in bus regions, then that high ridership is pretty meaningless. Rail cities may have slightly lower per capita driving, but if per capita driving is increasing faster in those cities, it will not do them much good. Of your "large rail cities," Boston is the only one that is showing much transit growth. Of your "small rail cities," Portland and, to a lesser degree, San Diego are the only ones showing much transit growth. That is hardly indicative of rail's great success. 4. RAIL COST EFFECTIVENESS IS GREATLY OVERESTIMATED The report says that "rail transit is generally constructed in the densest part of a city where capacity expansion is most costly." It is equally true that rail transit is generally constructed in the slowest growing part of a city where capacity expansion is least needed. In any case, we have several examples of parallel rail and highway construction where the rail cost per passenger mile was far greater than the highway cost (I-25 in Denver, I-15 in Salt Lake City). Table 4 of your analysis compares user costs without mentioning the huge subsidies for rail transit. Through gas taxes, U.S. highways pay for themselves. Total subsidies to auto users are little more than 0.3 cents per passenger mile. Subsidies to the average transit rider are around 60 cents per passenger mile, and subsidies to rail riders are greater. Your analysis also compares operating costs, when in fact capital costs (when annualized using a standard amortization formula as required by the FTA) greatly outweigh operating costs for rail transit. That is like comparing the costs of housing but leaving out the costs of the walls and roof! 5. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY DISCUSSION WRONG The report says that "rail transit projects and smart growth policies are generally implemented in rapidly growing cities where property values are rising due to increasing demand." That is not necessarily true. The fastest growing cities in the U.S. have no rail transit and little smart-growth planning and their housing remains very affordable. It is only in cities such as San Jose and Portland, where planners have attempted to create a transit utopia by increasing population densities that housing prices have become dramatically unaffordable. 6. SAFETY DISCUSSION USES WRONG MEASURE I compared the safety of various forms of transport in terms of fatalities per passenger mile. You compare it in terms of fatalities per capita. If it is true that smaller cities have higher per capita driving, then they can have lower fatalities per passenger mile yet higher fatalities per capita. Which is the right measure? If you value mobility, as I do, then fatalities per passenger mile is the correct measure. Though regrettable, fatalities result from almost anything we do. The question is whether what we do is worth the risk. Is getting to work on time worth the tiny and declining risk of getting killed in traffic? Apparently it is because most people drive. If you don't value mobility, then fatalities per capita may be adequate. But then you have to ask what the people in your smaller rail and bus cities are getting for their mobility. I suspect they are getting lower housing prices and other consumer costs, a wider range of job opportunities, access to more recreation, etc. 7. THE COST OF SPRAWL IS EXAGGERATED Your report says that I "favor automobile-oriented sprawl." Nothing could be further from the truth. I favor freedom of choice and I oppose government manipulation of people to get some predefined (and ineptly designed) goal. Cities without zoning (e.g. Houston) have demonstrated that, in the absence of regulation, people prefer to drive and to live in low-density, single-use developments. Cities with high degrees of regulation and restrictions on driving and low-density development (e.g., Paris, Amsterdam, and almost any other major European city) show that people still prefer to live in low densities and to drive, as driving is rapidly increasing and densities declining in almost all European cities. What is wrong with what you call "sprawl"? The Russians say that "Americans don't have real problems, so they make them up." Sprawl is one of those made-up problems. Pollution from auto driving is rapidly declining even though we drive more every year. Auto fatalities are also declining. Lower densities translate to lower housing and consumer costs, lower taxes, and less congestion. If people decide to move to higher densities, that is up to them. I only oppose subsidies and regulation designed to promote higher densities and discourage lower densities. 9. LACK OF REFERENCES A VALID CRITICISM You accurately point out that I failed to provide adequate references to some of my statements. I still stand behind those statements. In one case, I said that most rail cities are spending over half their transportation capital funds on transit. You can find the references at http://ti.org/vaupdate24.html . I will send you the list of EISs that I used to review rail costs and ridership soon. Let me know if you have any questions or response. Yours, Randal O'Toole -- Center for the American Dream Independence Institute 13952 Denver West Parkway, Suite 400 Golden, CO 80401 303-279-6536 303-312-1577 (my voice mail) 303-279-4176 (fax) 541-297-6798 (cell) http://i2i.org/cad.aspx ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From litman at vtpi.org Tue Apr 27 05:06:15 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:06:15 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Evaluating Rail Transit Benefits (was UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway) In-Reply-To: References: <007c01c42b72$890aa9a0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> <007c01c42b72$890aa9a0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20040426100131.02433628@mail.highspeedplus.com> Dear Colleagues, It is unfortunate that the debate over the merits of rail transit has become so polarized. I urge all of you to read my report and contrast it with O'Toole's paper before you make any judgments one way or the other. My report is not simply a list good things about rail and bad things about bus or automobile travel (in contrast with O'Toole's document, which only discusses the disadvantages of rail). I have tried to provide a balanced discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each mode, and therefore the situations in which each is most appropriate. Although you might place more emphasis on one factor or another, I have yet to have anybody challenge the basic concepts or the categories of advantages and disadvantages in my paper. I am certainly not saying that rail transit is always a cost-effective investment, or that all rail projects are optimal. I have, however, identified a number of benefits in terms of transportation system performance (per capita transportation costs, congestion delays, fatal traffic accidents, etc.) which seem to result from the leverage effects rail can have on a city's transportation and land use patterns. There are legitimate questions as to whether these advantages are simply legacies of older cities that cannot be achieved with new rail (experience in cities such as Portland indicate that new rail systems can reduce per capita vehicle ownership and mileage, but more research is needed to determine the overall magnitude of these impacts and the total potential market for such housing), and different people may place different values on these benefits, but it would be unfair to a community to evaluate rail system benefits, without considering these additional impacts. They are potentially very large and so have significant implications for project evaluation. Below are my responses to Mr. O'Toole's comments about my paper. >1. NEW YORK DISTORTS DATA >I like to say that the U.S. has two kinds of urban areas: New York >and everywhere else. Nowhere else has a Manhattan with 52,000 people >per square mile and (more important) 80,000 jobs per square mile. New >York transit has more than twice the market share of the next leading >region. > >Lumping New York in the transit data for any other group of urban >areas (as you do in your discussion of "Large Rail cities" along with >tables 1, 6, 7, and elsewhere in your report) produces distorted >results that are not reflective of other regions. Because New York is >so large and because it produces more than 5 times as many transit >rides as the next-highest urban area (and 38 percent of all transit >rides in the U.S.), the averages you get from lumping it with other >regions will be unrealistically high for any other region. Todd Litman: I have recalculated the data in my spreadsheet (http://www.vtpi.org/rail.xls) excluding New York, and the results changed little, indicating that other "Large Rail" cities have per capita transportation system performance similar to that of New York, despite the fact that they are significantly smaller. Below are a few examples to illustrate the point. Annual Per Capita Transit Trips Large Rail Small Rail Bus Only 50 largest U.S. Cities With New York 589 176 118 50 largest U.S. Cities W/O New York 520 176 118 Annual Traffic Fatalities Per 100,000 Population Large Rail Small Rail Bus Only 50 largest U.S. Cities With New York 7.46 9.99 11.72 50 largest U.S. Cities W/O New York 7.90 9.99 11.72 Per Capita Annual Congestion Costs Large Rail Small Rail Bus Only 50 largest U.S. Cities With New York $551 $466 $397 50 largest U.S. Cities W/O New York $561 $466 $397 Percent Income On Household Expenditures Large Rail Small Rail Bus Only 50 largest U.S. Cities With New York 12.04% 15.81% 14.89% 50 largest U.S. Cities W/O New York 12.02% 15.81% 14.89% In each of these cases, excluding New York reduces the relative advantage of Large Rail cities, but by a modest amount, indicating that other Large Rail cities also enjoy significant benefits. >Similarly, the other six "Large Rail cities" are all older cities >with high-density cores that have not been built elsewhere in the >last century. While it is amazing that these regions have such low >transit ridership compared with New York, any results for these six >regions cannot be applied to newer regions such as Atlanta, Phoenix, >and San Jose. These newer regions are just never going to look like >Chicago or San Francisco. This is why I compared each region individually >and didn't try to >lump them together. Todd Litman: That is a key issue discussed in my paper, that is, whether new rail systems can achieve the land use impacts of older rail systems (see the "Counter Arguments" section). I think there is evidence that it can, provided it is supported with appropriate transport and land use policies. The question is not whether Atlanta can become Chicago, but whether some parts of Atlanta can become like some parts of Chicago, and whether rail projects that leverage such land use patterns provide more benefits than alternative transportation improvements in that area or on that corridor. O'Toole misrepresents his paper when he claims that it does not try to lump cities with rail transit together. His report claims that, "The twenty-three urban areas with rail transit collectively lost more than 33,000 transit commuters during the 1990s, while the twenty-five largest urban areas without rail transit collectively gained more than 27,000 transit commuters." Not only is this an example of broad statements he makes comparing rail and non-rail cities, but he admitted to me more than a month ago that the numbers are incorrect (it should be a 14,097 loss in rail cities and a 1,388 gain in bus cities), yet he has not changed the wording of the reports posted on his website. >2. PER CAPITA TRANSIT RIDERSHIP IS NOT AN INDICATOR OF LIVABILITY >Much of your report focuses on the allegedly high per capita transit >ridership in rail regions. But why is this important? Even the >fastest transit tends to be slower and (because it is not >door-to-door) less convenient than the automobile. High levels of per >capita ridership thus suggest lower levels of mobility. > >Perhaps this is because the city is so well designed that people >don't need that mobility -- the Robert Cervero argument for >accessibility rather than mobility. In fact, no urban area, with the >possible exception of New York (really, only parts of New York) is >designed to give people accessibility through transit. > >This means that high levels of per capita transit ridership probably >mean lower levels of mobility, which in turn means higher housing >costs, consumer costs, and other costs. Todd Litman: I agree that transit ridership is an objective, not a goal. The goal is to improve transportation system performance and provide benefits to consumers. Most urban mobility is a derived demand, to provide access to goods, services and activities. Few people would choose a more round-about commute trip simply because they enjoy the extra driving. Relative speed is just one aspect of access. For example, some people prefer commuting by transit, particularly rail, because it is less stressful than driving, even if it takes more time. Out of ignorance or intent, O'Toole evaluates transportation only in terms of mobility, not accessibility, and therefore ignores any benefits that may result when transit provides a catalyst for more accessible land use patterns which reduce per capita vehicle mileage. He makes no mention of this issue or its implication in terms of transit evaluation. For more information see my article "Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility", published last year in the ITE Journal (http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf), which discusses the difference between measuring mobility and accessibility. I don't claim that every rail project significantly increases land use accessibility, or that only rail transit investments can achieve these changes, but my study suggests that when they occur they can provide large benefits to a community, including benefits to people who do not currently ride transit. An interesting finding of my research is that even relatively modest increases in the portion of regional trips made by transit can result in relatively large reductions in per capita transportation costs, congestion costs and traffic deaths. I think this occurs because the regional data hide quite large impacts at the local level. For example, here in Victoria, BC, residents of some neighborhoods, those that reflect transit-oriented development attributes, tend to own fewer cars, drive less and walk more than residents of more suburban neighborhoods. In addition, the trips that tend to shift from automobile to transit tend to be the ones that provide the greatest benefit (i.e., peak-period travel to major centers). O'Toole's claim that higher levels of accessibility and lower levels of mobility cause higher housing and transportation costs is typical of the claims made by smart growth critics without analysis or evidence. My research indicates that residents of cities with large, well-established rail systems spend significantly less on transportation than residents of other types of cities (12% versus 16% for Small Rail and 15% for Bus Only cities), representing about $450 annual savings per capita, despite the fact that Large Rail city residents earn substantially more, and so would otherwise be expected to spend more on their vehicles. These values do not change significantly when New York is excluded. In addition, reductions in per capita vehicle ownership in Large Rail cities can translate into significant residential parking cost savings. As mentioned in my paper, there is considerable uncertainty as to the impacts that smart growth and transit-oriented development have on housing affordability - in some ways they reduce affordability (reduced per capita land supply) and in other ways they increase it (increased density allowances and housing options, reduced building setback requirements, reduced per capita parking costs, transportation costs, etc.). It is simply wrong to claim that smart growth and transit oriented development necessarily reduce housing affordability (see "Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability" at http://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf). >3. THE REPORT EMPHASIZES POINTS IN TIME WITHOUT SCRUTINIZING TRENDS >Most of the indicators in Great Rail Disasters were trends: typically >1990 to 2000. Most of the indicators in your report represent single >points in time. Rail regions, for example, may have high per capita >transit ridership, but if transit commuting is declining while it is >increasing in bus regions, then that high ridership is pretty >meaningless. Rail cities may have slightly lower per capita driving, >but if per capita driving is increasing faster in those cities, it >will not do them much good. > >Of your "large rail cities," Boston is the only one that is showing >much transit growth. Of your "small rail cities," Portland and, to a >lesser degree, San Diego are the only ones showing much transit >growth. That is hardly indicative of rail's great success. Todd Litman: I hope to expand my research to include time series analysis. As stated in my paper, I agree that low transit ridership in U.S. cities (both with and without rail) is a reason for concern, but I don't think that proves that rail is necessarily a failure or a bad investment. A number of cost-effective strategies described in my paper can help increase transit ridership and attract discretionary riders (e.g., parking cash out, improved walkability, pay-as-you-drive vehicle insurance, congestion pricing, etc.). The question therefore shifts from whether transit is good or bad, to how to implement transit in conjunction with other transportation and land use policies to optimize benefits. The concerns O'Toole raises can therefore justify MORE rather than LESS support for rail. >4. RAIL COST EFFECTIVENESS IS GREATLY OVERESTIMATED >The report says that "rail transit is generally constructed in the >densest part of a city where capacity expansion is most costly." It >is equally true that rail transit is generally constructed in the >slowest growing part of a city where capacity expansion is least >needed. In any case, we have several examples of parallel rail and >highway construction where the rail cost per passenger mile was far >greater than the highway cost (I-25 in Denver, I-15 in Salt Lake City). > >Table 4 of your analysis compares user costs without mentioning the >huge subsidies for rail transit. Through gas taxes, U.S. highways pay >for themselves. Total subsidies to auto users are little more than >0.3 cents per passenger mile. Subsidies to the average transit rider >are around 60 cents per passenger mile, and subsidies to rail riders >are greater. > >Your analysis also compares operating costs, when in fact capital >costs (when annualized using a standard amortization formula as >required by the FTA) greatly outweigh operating costs for rail >transit. That is like comparing the costs of housing but leaving out >the costs of the walls and roof! Todd Litman: I agree that transit cost analysis should include both capital and operating costs, and I will incorporate capital costs in future analysis. I left them out because it requires more detailed research, since capital costs can fluctuate significantly from one year to the next, so considerable data is needed for accurate analysis. Rail project budgets incorporate nearly all costs. Buses require highways; and automobile travel requires vehicles, highways and parking facilities, costs ignored in O'Toole's analysis. It is therefore not appropriate to compare rail capital costs with bus capital costs (ignoring roadway costs), or with highway costs (ignoring vehicle and parking costs) when evaluating the cost effectiveness of these options. Although it can be argued that vehicle fuel taxes fund most roadway costs, there are a number of additional costs and subsidies. In particular, peak-period urban-highway drivers are cross-subsidized by motorists who seldom or never use such facilities, land used for road rights-of-way pays no rent or taxes, and parking facilities are a large subsidy of automobile travel. I have performed considerable research on the proper evaluation of different modes of transportation (see "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis at http://www.vtpi.org/tca and "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs at http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf, which will soon be updated), in order to insure that all of these impacts are considered. My goal is not to make one mode look better than another, but rather to create a comprehensive and accurate evaluation framework. >5. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY DISCUSSION WRONG >The report says that "rail transit projects and smart growth policies >are generally implemented in rapidly growing cities where property >values are rising due to increasing demand." That is not necessarily >true. The fastest growing cities in the U.S. have no rail transit and >little smart-growth planning and their housing remains very >affordable. It is only in cities such as San Jose and Portland, where >planners have attempted to create a transit utopia by increasing >population densities that housing prices have become dramatically >unaffordable. Todd Litman: As mentioned above, critics of smart growth have misrepresented the issues regarding housing affordability (See Danielle Arigoni, "Affordable Housing and Smart Growth: Making the Connections," Subgroup on Affordable Housing, Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) and National Neighborhood Coalition (www.neighborhoodcoalition.org), 2001; Edward Carman, Berry Bluestone and Eleanor White, "Building on our Heritage: A Housing Strategy for Smart Growth and Economic Development," Center for Urban and Regional Policy, Northwestern University (www.curp.neu.edu), for the Commonwealth Housing Task Force, October 2003; Arthur C. Nelson, Rolf Pendall, Casy Dawkins and Gerrit Knaap, The Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence, Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy (www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/growthmang.pdf), 2002). Housing unaffordability tends to occur in any desirable neighborhood. Within such areas, smart growth and transit-oriented development can reduce per capita land requirements, parking requirements and transportation costs, making them more affordable. >6. SAFETY DISCUSSION USES WRONG MEASURE >I compared the safety of various forms of transport in terms of >fatalities per passenger mile. You compare it in terms of fatalities >per capita. If it is true that smaller cities have higher per capita >driving, then they can have lower fatalities per passenger mile yet >higher fatalities per capita. > >Which is the right measure? If you value mobility, as I do, then >fatalities per passenger mile is the correct measure. Though >regrettable, fatalities result from almost anything we do. The >question is whether what we do is worth the risk. Is getting to work >on time worth the tiny and declining risk of getting killed in >traffic? Apparently it is because most people drive. > >If you don't value mobility, then fatalities per capita may be >adequate. But then you have to ask what the people in your smaller >rail and bus cities are getting for their mobility. I suspect they >are getting lower housing prices and other consumer costs, a wider >range of job opportunities, access to more recreation, etc. Todd Litman: As mentioned above, most urban mobility is a derived demand, not an end in itself. Few people drive across town just for the fun of it, and few people would prefer to live in a community with 11.7 annual traffic fatalities 100,000 residents if they can enjoy a similar level of accessibility while living in a community with only 7.5 fatalities per 100,000 population (for even more dramatic evidence see the differences in traffic deaths between most- and least-sprawled cities in "Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth, http://www.vtpi.org/sgcritics.pdf). Large rail cities, by the way, tend to have higher average incomes, suggesting more rather than less access to employment and higher levels of productivity. >7. THE COST OF SPRAWL IS EXAGGERATED >Your report says that I "favor automobile-oriented sprawl." Nothing >could be further from the truth. I favor freedom of choice and I >oppose government manipulation of people to get some predefined (and >ineptly designed) goal. Todd Litman: There are more regulations supporting sprawl and automobile dependency than supporting smart growth, including minimum parking requirements, single-use zoning, restrictions on density and multi-family housing, building setbacks and generous road standards, yet O'Toole only argues against one set of regulations. Analysis by Dr. Donald Shoup found that parking costs are 4.4 times higher than the average total of all other development fees, including roads, schools, parks, water, sewage and flood control. >Cities without zoning (e.g. Houston) have demonstrated that, in the >absence of regulation, people prefer to drive and to live in >low-density, single-use developments. Cities with high degrees of >regulation and restrictions on driving and low-density development >(e.g., Paris, Amsterdam, and almost any other major European city) >show that people still prefer to live in low densities and to drive, >as driving is rapidly increasing and densities declining in almost >all European cities. Todd Litman: The evidence is quite mixed, and it misrepresents the issue to claim that it proves any single thing. For example, many cities in North America and Europe are experiencing redevelopment and population growth. It is simply wrong to claim that people prefer to drive and live in low-density areas; people are diverse and at least some prefer very different types of housing. Studies described in my paper indicate that many households are willing to pay a premium for New Urbanist housing and proximity to rail transit. Whether this market segment is a minority of a majority of all consumers is irrelevant, as long as there is a sufficient demand (I estimate 15-25% of households in a typical urban region), then this is a market segment that deserves to be served with quality transit services and transit-oriented development. >What is wrong with what you call "sprawl"? The Russians say that >"Americans don't have real problems, so they make them up." Sprawl is >one of those made-up problems. Pollution from auto driving is rapidly >declining even though we drive more every year. Auto fatalities are >also declining. Lower densities translate to lower housing and >consumer costs, lower taxes, and less congestion. >If people decide to move to higher densities, that is up to them. I >only oppose subsidies and regulation designed to promote higher >densities and discourage lower densities. There is considerable literature on the costs of sprawl and benefits of smart growth (see references in http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm20.htm). Smart growth is supported by a variety of mainstream organizations including the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE, 2003), the International City/County Management Association (ICCMA, 1998) and the American Governor's Association (Hirschhorn, 2001), because of the cost savings and other benefits it provides. As a person of Russian descent I recommend against making general statements about what Russians say: two Russians, three opinions. All the claims O'Toole makes are only partly true. Some U.S. cities are experiencing increasing air pollution problems as increased vehicle mileage offsets reductions in per-vehicle mileage. Although per-mile traffic fatalities are declining, per capita trends have leveled off and may be increasing (it is striking that the U.S. has one of the lowest per-mile traffic fatality rates, but one of the higher per-capita among developed countries due to high per capita vehicle mileage). Lower density housing often leads to HIGHER housing costs (due to higher infrastructure costs) and higher total housing and transportation costs. As mentioned above, the test of whether O'Toole really opposes subsidies and regulations is whether he applies the same effort to reducing those that favor automobile dependency and sprawl. >9. LACK OF REFERENCES A VALID CRITICISM >You accurately point out that I failed to provide adequate references >to some of my statements. I still stand behind those statements. In >one case, I said that most rail cities are spending over half their >transportation capital funds on transit. You can find the references >at http://ti.org/vaupdate24.html . I will send you the list of EISs >that I used to review rail costs and ridership soon. That is helpful. However, the evidence presented misrepresents the issue. Rail transit projects show up in regional capital budgets, so they may appear proportionately large, but regional capital budgets are only a small portion of total transportation expenditures in any region. There are also regional operation and maintenance budgets, local and state capital and operating budgets, expenditures by businesses on parking facilities, and expenditures by consumers on vehicles and residential parking, all of which should be considered when calculating and comparing costs of different modes. Regional mode share is simply not an appropriate basis for evaluating investments. In most urban regions motorists have little trouble driving to just about any destination with reasonable speed, comfort and safety, provided it isn't during peak periods. The major transportation problems facing most urban regions include traffic and parking congestion on major urban corridors, and inadequate mobility for non-drivers. These are exactly the problems that transit improvements are most appropriate for addressing. Transit improvements can help achieve a variety of objectives, including reduced consumer costs, reduced parking costs, reduced accidents and reduced pollution emissions, all costs that tend to be exacerbated by highway capacity expansion and increased automobile dependency. As a result, transit investments that improve service quality and attract discretionary travelers who would otherwise drive on major urban corridors can be the most cost effective way to improve transportation, even if transit represents a small portion of total regional travel. Please let me know if you have questions or comments about my report. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 11:32 PM 4/26/2004 +0700, Jonathan E. D. Richmond wrote: >The situation Brendan describes in Ireland seems to be almost universal. >As I found in my work (and as Don Pickrell established before me), >forecasts are overestimated, costs underestimated and -- more important -- >there is a lack of realistic analysis of alternatives, which are assumed >to be inferior from the start. Such analysis as takes place is usually >biased: For example, a rail plus feeder bus network is compared to a bus >only network, but the cost of the feeder buses is left out! > >In case any of you have not yet seen Randy O'Toole's response to Todd >Litman, I am posting it below. I differ from Randy on his views of sprawl, >and support the provision of public transport with public subsidies where >appropriate, but I believe his analysis should be noted. My own analysis, >(which I will be pleased to send anyone interested), shows that new rail >projects in the US are a failure in every case except San Diego, and we do >need to look at the record of such new projects to understand what is >happening and not look at data for New York which really is not going to >tell us much about the likelihood of success in rather different >situations. > > --Jonathan > >----- > >Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) >Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 >Transportation Engineering program >School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) >Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 >PO Box 4 >Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) >Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 > >e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 >http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From hduc at airmoon.epa.nsw.gov.au Wed Apr 28 10:39:02 2004 From: hduc at airmoon.epa.nsw.gov.au (Hiep Duc Nguyen) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:39:02 +1000 (EST) Subject: [sustran] Re: Motorcycles Transportation Vietnam In-Reply-To: <011701c42a46$4e35ea10$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Message-ID: On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Brendan Finn wrote: > Craig, > > For the high level of transport deaths in Ho Chi Minh City, I wonder how > many of them were four+ wheelers against 2-wheelers or pedestrians, and how > many were wallies-on-wheels that would manage to kill themselves in any > scenario (as in Thailand during the annual festival). It would be > interesting to know whether the inherent safety of two-wheelers and > pedestrians (excluding the wild boys) is low, medium or high. > > It seems to me that two-wheeler and pedestrian traffic in itself is safe, > but it just cannot co-exist with larger vehicles. And since the latter are > determined to be on the streets, gentler forms of transport must be removed > for their own safety. > Hi Brendan, Craig and all, The high traffic accidents in Vietnam generally and in Ho Chi Minh City particularly are mostly due to the lack of basic traffic rules and the driver knowledges. There are no requirement (licence, age limit..) to ride a bicycle or motorcycle (except one above 50cc). Once on the road, you instincly 'flow' with the flow, there is hardly any lane separation. The roundabouts on the outskirt of HCM City, where highway city-bound traffic merges with city traffic, witness many fatal accidents. And there are many such roundabouts in and around HCM City. Even minor accidents can be deadly because there are no safety gear to protect riders (such as helmets). On the highway outside the cities, the main killers are speeding and overtaking by car, bus or truck drivers. I believe that traffic rules, driver education, enforcement will help to reduce the high rate of traffic accidents in Vietnam. Cheers, Hiep Duc Atmospheric Scientist Department of Environment & Conservation, NSW Lidcombe, NSW 2141, Australia From etts at indigo.ie Wed Apr 28 21:45:31 2004 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:45:31 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer References: <20040423043721.E86842C259@list.jca.apc.org><011001c42a44$5b095ee0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Message-ID: <006a01c42d1e$b12928f0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Jonathon, I'd be interested to do a bit of information exchange on this one. I'm currently doing some work with the UPT sector in Russia and later this year in Kazakstan. While people in cities such as St. Petersburg generally have affordability, there are many Russian cities where things are extremely tight. Premium services have a market everywhere, but as we move down the food chain we start to hit the financial impossibility of the 'socially-affordable fare' in many places. The burden has to be carried somewhere - by the taxpayer, the operator, or by the user. In Russia, it has often been the public-sector operator who gets badly squeezed. Maybe a few people who are interested in this topic could take it off-line and exchange ideas. Your research might act as a useful focal point where a number of people working in the domain could document case studies and comparable data ? With best wishes, Brendan Finn. _______________________________________________________________________ Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 7:49 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Brendan Finn wrote: > > > Jonathon, > > > > Taking Bangkok as an example, is there any practical way to provide bus > > services on a commercial basis at fares affordable to the poor with anything > > other than low-quality, low-cost buses ? > > I do not know yet. I expect this to be a subject of my research this > summer. One of my students is also going to be working on issues of > transit industry cost structures, so I hope to have some data later in the > year, although -- given the difficulties of pinning down anything of a > facual nature in this environment -- I cannot say that I will have > anything worthy of forming firm conclusions. > > > If there is, I'd like to hear it, > > since it seems to be an intractable puzzle in many countries. > > > > My experience in the CIS is that you can cover direct operating costs of old > > vehicles at low fares. To move to a new vehicle - however basic - requires a > > premium fare compared to the "social" fare. In part this reflects the high > > cost of capital, linked to low security of tenure on the route, and hence > > higher interest both to reflect the risk and the lack of financial weight of > > the borrower. In greater part, though, is the relative cost of hard assets > > compared to the fares income. In Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, I have > > seen no shortage of takers for the premium fare services, which offer a much > > higher quality of service in the eyes of the users - a seat, speed, > > cleanliness, and much less unwanted proximity (especially for women). Of > > course, this leaves the social travel and the poorest with the low-cost > > services, leading them inexorably down the sinkhole. > > Exactly: and in Bangkok I think you will find that this group accounts for > a very large share of the population and -- particularly -- of the > transit-using population. > From richmond at alum.mit.edu Thu Apr 29 03:16:54 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:16:54 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer In-Reply-To: <006a01c42d1e$b12928f0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> References: <20040423043721.E86842C259@list.jca.apc.org><011001c42a44$5b095ee0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> <006a01c42d1e$b12928f0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Message-ID: Sure, I'd be happy to be involved with this! --Jonathan On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Brendan Finn wrote: > Jonathon, > > I'd be interested to do a bit of information exchange on this one. I'm > currently doing some work with the UPT sector in Russia and later this year > in Kazakstan. While people in cities such as St. Petersburg generally have > affordability, there are many Russian cities where things are extremely > tight. Premium services have a market everywhere, but as we move down the > food chain we start to hit the financial impossibility of the > 'socially-affordable fare' in many places. The burden has to be carried > somewhere - by the taxpayer, the operator, or by the user. In Russia, it has > often been the public-sector operator who gets badly squeezed. > > Maybe a few people who are interested in this topic could take it off-line > and exchange ideas. Your research might act as a useful focal point where a > number of people working in the domain could document case studies and > comparable data ? > > With best wishes, > > > Brendan Finn. > _______________________________________________________________________ > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 7:49 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer > > > > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Brendan Finn wrote: > > > > > Jonathon, > > > > > > Taking Bangkok as an example, is there any practical way to provide bus > > > services on a commercial basis at fares affordable to the poor with > anything > > > other than low-quality, low-cost buses ? > > > > I do not know yet. I expect this to be a subject of my research this > > summer. One of my students is also going to be working on issues of > > transit industry cost structures, so I hope to have some data later in the > > year, although -- given the difficulties of pinning down anything of a > > facual nature in this environment -- I cannot say that I will have > > anything worthy of forming firm conclusions. > > > > > > If there is, I'd like to hear it, > > > since it seems to be an intractable puzzle in many countries. > > > > > > My experience in the CIS is that you can cover direct operating costs of > old > > > vehicles at low fares. To move to a new vehicle - however basic - > requires a > > > premium fare compared to the "social" fare. In part this reflects the > high > > > cost of capital, linked to low security of tenure on the route, and > hence > > > higher interest both to reflect the risk and the lack of financial > weight of > > > the borrower. In greater part, though, is the relative cost of hard > assets > > > compared to the fares income. In Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, I > have > > > seen no shortage of takers for the premium fare services, which offer a > much > > > higher quality of service in the eyes of the users - a seat, speed, > > > cleanliness, and much less unwanted proximity (especially for women). Of > > > course, this leaves the social travel and the poorest with the low-cost > > > services, leading them inexorably down the sinkhole. > > > > Exactly: and in Bangkok I think you will find that this group accounts for > > a very large share of the population and -- particularly -- of the > > transit-using population. > > > > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From whook at itdp.org Thu Apr 29 03:39:11 2004 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:39:11 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer References: <20040423043721.E86842C259@list.jca.apc.org><011001c42a44$5b095ee0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb><006a01c42d1e$b12928f0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Message-ID: <00bc01c42d50$19476740$6801a8c0@WALTER> central european cities like Krakow and Budapest have modernized their transit fleets somewhat. The national government is now picking up the cost of pensioners and school students and the disabled. The price of the monthly or yearly pass is going up roughly at the inflation rate, the price of individual ticket purchases is going up above the inflation rate, and there has been an almost draconian crack down on fare evasion which was like 20% on some systems. While cracking down on fare evasion is a pain for foreigners, it is a reasonable source of generating revenues. The systems are still not at full cost recovery of operating expenses but cost recovery rates are up to the 50% range (it depends if you include depreciation of the rolling stock). I understand in most of the CIS the cost recovery figures are still down in the 20% range but maybe this has recently changed. Slobodan Mitric, formerly with the World bank, used to have a lot of info on this but i've lost touch with him of late. walter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:16 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer > > Sure, I'd be happy to be involved with this! --Jonathan > > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Brendan Finn wrote: > > > Jonathon, > > > > I'd be interested to do a bit of information exchange on this one. I'm > > currently doing some work with the UPT sector in Russia and later this year > > in Kazakstan. While people in cities such as St. Petersburg generally have > > affordability, there are many Russian cities where things are extremely > > tight. Premium services have a market everywhere, but as we move down the > > food chain we start to hit the financial impossibility of the > > 'socially-affordable fare' in many places. The burden has to be carried > > somewhere - by the taxpayer, the operator, or by the user. In Russia, it has > > often been the public-sector operator who gets badly squeezed. > > > > Maybe a few people who are interested in this topic could take it off-line > > and exchange ideas. Your research might act as a useful focal point where a > > number of people working in the domain could document case studies and > > comparable data ? > > > > With best wishes, > > > > > > Brendan Finn. > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" > > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > > Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 7:49 AM > > Subject: [sustran] Re: (fwd) [UTSG] transport strategy transfer > > > > > > > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Brendan Finn wrote: > > > > > > > Jonathon, > > > > > > > > Taking Bangkok as an example, is there any practical way to provide bus > > > > services on a commercial basis at fares affordable to the poor with > > anything > > > > other than low-quality, low-cost buses ? > > > > > > I do not know yet. I expect this to be a subject of my research this > > > summer. One of my students is also going to be working on issues of > > > transit industry cost structures, so I hope to have some data later in the > > > year, although -- given the difficulties of pinning down anything of a > > > facual nature in this environment -- I cannot say that I will have > > > anything worthy of forming firm conclusions. > > > > > > > > > If there is, I'd like to hear it, > > > > since it seems to be an intractable puzzle in many countries. > > > > > > > > My experience in the CIS is that you can cover direct operating costs of > > old > > > > vehicles at low fares. To move to a new vehicle - however basic - > > requires a > > > > premium fare compared to the "social" fare. In part this reflects the > > high > > > > cost of capital, linked to low security of tenure on the route, and > > hence > > > > higher interest both to reflect the risk and the lack of financial > > weight of > > > > the borrower. In greater part, though, is the relative cost of hard > > assets > > > > compared to the fares income. In Russia, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, I > > have > > > > seen no shortage of takers for the premium fare services, which offer a > > much > > > > higher quality of service in the eyes of the users - a seat, speed, > > > > cleanliness, and much less unwanted proximity (especially for women). Of > > > > course, this leaves the social travel and the poorest with the low-cost > > > > services, leading them inexorably down the sinkhole. > > > > > > Exactly: and in Bangkok I think you will find that this group accounts for > > > a very large share of the population and -- particularly -- of the > > > transit-using population. > > > > > > > > > ----- > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > Transportation Engineering program > School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) > Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 > PO Box 4 > Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) > Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 > > e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > From ericbruun at earthlink.net Fri Apr 30 06:10:01 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:10:01 -0400 Subject: [sustran] More on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway References: <007c01c42b72$890aa9a0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Message-ID: <01df01c42e31$46633b00$a9f845cf@earthlink.net> Dear Sustran readers: Covering operating costs, even by the definition used in Dublin, would be considered an excellent result in most of the richer cities in Europe and North America. But this definition of covering operating cost is problematic, of I will mention more below. As I have said before, I support quality bus network additions, but they are not necessarily the equal of rail projects. I don't know the circumstances of the specific alignments in Dublin, but here are some considerations that can often makes rail a better alternative: 1) High labor costs. If demand is high and service is frequent, then very large vehicles cut labor costs. If Dublin is like the UK, operator wages are probably quite low and unions weak or non-existent. In this case labor costs are not as important as in countries where workers are better paid. 2) High peak to base ratios. Rail vehicles can have their rakes (or consists in North America) lengthened at low marginal cost. Each unit of bus capacity costs the same as the last on busways. The marginal cost for buses (and old fashioned streetcars) actually increases during peak hours if they are in mixed traffic operation. 3) Existing disused rail rights-of-way in decent locations can save a lot of time and money for rail projects. 4) Where there is no way to avoid tunneling or huge suspension bridges. Once this is necessary, then the cost of rail and electrification may not be such a large incremental increase. Not every large city has the width of right-of-way available that the main trunk line of TransMillenio in Bogota requires. Creating such a corridor would require the same kind of massive dislocation and disruption that motorways require. There also may be serious water crossings. 5) Lack of enforcement of bus lanes. Rail rights-of-way can be designed to deter other vehicles. (Bus rights-of-way can also do this, in theory, but there is often much pressure to let other vehicles fill the "empty space".) 6) Corridors where development is going to intensify. Even if the demand is met by buses at a reasonable frequency today, there may have to be a continuous wall of them in the future. This becomes quite unattractive in areas where there are many residences and/or pedestrians. It also means that pedestrians have to be excluded. Fewer rail vehicles providing equal capacity at much longer headways might make it possible to keep the right-of-way more open. 7) System operating cost is relevant, not modal operating cost. This is where the auditors and right-wing idealogues get it all wrong. In some corridors it makes sense to transfer passengers to large trunk vehicles and use the buses for higher frequency local feeders, circulators, and tangential connectors. In this way, more service to more origin-destination pairs is offered for an equal operating budget. This is even more true when there are high peak-to-base ratios. Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brendan Finn" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 5:40 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > For what it's worth : > > In Dublin we will soon have two new tram/LRT lines in operation. The UK > National Audit seems to have triggered a little freedom of information here. > > The Rail Procurement Agency (RPA) has entered into a contract with CONNEX > who will operate the system. We are told that this contract will have a > value of 20 million Euro per year. We are also told that the forecast > carryings are 20 million passengers per year, and the forecast revenue > (collected by RPA) is 20 million Euro per year. Following the UK National > Audit, the RPA has assured us that the forecasting was done to > "international standards" - whatever these actually are. > > The "optimistic" forecast, therefore, is that revenues barely cover direct > operating cost. "Optimistic" means that there is zero contribution to the > 700 million Euro plus investment, zero contribution to the maintenance costs > (not in the CONNEX contract), zero contribution to customer-facing services > such as ticketing and information, and zero surplus for future development. > Incredibly, that's the "optimistic" version based on the "international > standard" forecasts. > > Forgive my cynicism as I point out that the capital investment on these two > LRT lines is equivalent to 4 years total costs (note : full costs, not > subsidy) for the bus network which always has and always will carry the vast > majority of public transport passengers in Dublin. It is also about 10 times > greater than the extensive and excellent Quality Bus Corridor Network which > is well under way. > > Trams are very nice to use, and it was very considerate of previous > generations to make the investments for many cities. They are truly a legacy > to any city. However, transport professionals should maintain their > integrity and not pretend either that they make economic sense or that they > are the most effective mobility solution, especially when compared with the > very best bus-based alternatives. > > With best wishes, > > Brendan Finn. > _______________________________________________________________________ > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Howes" > To: ">" > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:20 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > I never suggested anyone should rely on the UK government's viewpoint (I > gave that up myself a long time ago). I gave the information so that people > could find out why the UK government is doing what it is doing. > > My own view, FWIW, is that UK government policy has switched from being too > much pro-tram to being too much anti-tram - such abrupt policy changes are > not helpful, but are unfortunately all too common. > > But I also feel that where cash for transport investment is scarce, as is > often the case in the developing world (but should NOT be the case in the UK > which is crying out for better transport infrastructure), bus-based systems > can often offer better value for money than rail-based ones. An over-short > summary of my views, but I don't have time for more at present. > > Alan > > -- > Alan Howes > Associate Transport Planner > Colin Buchanan and Partners > > 4 St Colme Street > Edinburgh EH3 6AA > Scotland > email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk > tel: (0)131 240 2892 (direct) > (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) > fax: (0)131 220 0232 > www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ > _______________________________ > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the > addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you > have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to > this email. > Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not > constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of CBP, do > not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or > opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions > of business. > We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software > viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by > software viruses. > _______________________________ > > > >>> Eric Bruun 25/04/04 23:09:06 >>> > > Normally, I just read and learn from this discussion group. But this is the > second time in the recent past that I simply have to say something. > > The UK is a very special case. The Central Government's definition of what > is good performance is not the same as in Europe or in North America. > Because of the Private Finance Initiative, the rates of return required are > higher than for public projects. Projects also might be based on the > investors getting some of the fare revenue. The Croydon Tramlink in London > would be considered a success elsewhere, but it is not a financial success > for the private investors through no fault of their own. Transport for > London sensibly is introducing Smart Cards with integrated fares, so that > there are fewer fares collected than anticipated, but the investors are not > being compensated for this change of plans. > > This experience is causing potential investors to be cautious. It is not > helped by the fact that the Government doesn't allow coordination with bus > networks so that there may be massive duplicative service. > > The last two issues of Urban Transport International have had interesting > articles about this. I would not rely only on the Government's viewpoint. > > Eric Bruun > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan P Howes > Sent: Apr 25, 2004 9:54 PM > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Cc: Jerry Schneider > Subject: [sustran] UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > That's two people now who have asked about the above. Most of the > coverage I have seen of this is in the UK specialist magazines Local > Transport Today and Transit - neither of which publish on-line. > Though I will see if I can find an article to scan. > > There's some fairly good coverage though, on the BBC website at > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3651587.stm Useful links to follow too. > > Another source is the UK Department for Transport website. It's big, > and I haven't yet found a definitive article. But if you take a look > at - > http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0170 > [UK DfT > Home > Local Transport > Local transport plan - process and > initiatives > Local transport capital settlements > Local transport > plans settlement - December 2003] > you will find details of DfT capital grants for local transport. Lots > of busways - no trams! If you dig around on the DfT site you might > find more. > > Then, hot off the press (April 23rd) there is a report from the UK > National Audit Office at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm > > I haven't had time as yet to read the exec summary, let alone the full > report. But basically it is pointing out the fact that tram schemes > in the UK have mostly fallen short of meeting planned performance, and > looks at why. > > Regards, Alan > -- > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > > > > From ericbruun at earthlink.net Fri Apr 30 06:25:54 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:25:54 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Croydon Tramlink References: <25607389.1082930946948.JavaMail.root@dewey.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <01e101c42e31$4a47a120$a9f845cf@earthlink.net> Transport for London regularly surveys the public and studies the traffic situation. The public likes it, and the boroughs through which it travels like it. It provides a more reliable service and one that is more compatible with the high streets and with pedestrians than the bus services which it has replaced. These count for something too, not just whether it is a financial success according to the Private Finance Initiative dogma of the Central Government. This infrastructure and service will be in place and of benefit to Londoners for a long time, while investment analyses tends to focus on maybe 15 years. Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" To: "Eric Bruun" ; "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Cc: ; "Jerry Schneider" Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > On what basis would the Croydon Tramlink be considered "a success." I > believe we must systematically weight the alternatives before we can > define success. > > Have you seen my article on "A Whole-System Approach? (review of US light > rail and critique of evaluation methods) --Jonathan > > > On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > > > > > Normally, I just read and learn from this discussion group. But this is the second time in the recent past that I simply have to say something. > > > > The UK is a very special case. The Central Government's definition of what is good performance is not the same as in Europe or in North America. Because of the Private Finance Initiative, the rates of return required are higher than for public projects. Projects also might be based on the investors getting some of the fare revenue. The Croydon Tramlink in London would be considered a success elsewhere, but it is not a financial success for the private investors through no fault of their own. Transport for London sensibly is introducing Smart Cards with integrated fares, so that there are fewer fares collected than anticipated, but the investors are not being compensated for this change of plans. > > > > This experience is causing potential investors to be cautious. It is not helped by the fact that the Government doesn't allow coordination with bus networks so that there may be massive duplicative service. > > > > The last two issues of Urban Transport International have had interesting articles about this. I would not rely only on the Government's viewpoint. > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alan P Howes > > Sent: Apr 25, 2004 9:54 PM > > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > Cc: Jerry Schneider > > Subject: [sustran] UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > That's two people now who have asked about the above. Most of the > > coverage I have seen of this is in the UK specialist magazines Local > > Transport Today and Transit - neither of which publish on-line. > > Though I will see if I can find an article to scan. > > > > There's some fairly good coverage though, on the BBC website at > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3651587.stm Useful links to follow too. > > > > Another source is the UK Department for Transport website. It's big, > > and I haven't yet found a definitive article. But if you take a look > > at - > > http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0170 > > [UK DfT > Home > Local Transport > Local transport plan - process and > > initiatives > Local transport capital settlements > Local transport > > plans settlement - December 2003] > > you will find details of DfT capital grants for local transport. Lots > > of busways - no trams! If you dig around on the DfT site you might > > find more. > > > > Then, hot off the press (April 23rd) there is a report from the UK > > National Audit Office at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm > > > > I haven't had time as yet to read the exec summary, let alone the full > > report. But basically it is pointing out the fact that tram schemes > > in the UK have mostly fallen short of meeting planned performance, and > > looks at why. > > > > Regards, Alan > > -- > > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > > > > > > ----- > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > Transportation Engineering program > School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) > Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 > PO Box 4 > Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) > Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 > > e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > From richmond at alum.mit.edu Fri Apr 30 12:23:58 2004 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:23:58 +0700 (SE Asia Standard Time) Subject: [sustran] Re: More on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway In-Reply-To: <01df01c42e31$46633b00$a9f845cf@earthlink.net> References: <007c01c42b72$890aa9a0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> <01df01c42e31$46633b00$a9f845cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > > > Dear Sustran readers: > > Covering operating costs, even by the definition used in Dublin, would be > considered an excellent result in most of the richer cities in Europe and > North America. But this definition of covering operating cost is > problematic, of I will mention more below. > > As I have said before, I support quality bus network additions, but they are > not necessarily the equal of rail projects. I don't know the circumstances > of the specific alignments in Dublin, but here are some considerations that > can often makes rail a better alternative: > > 1) High labor costs. If demand is high and service is frequent, then very > large vehicles cut labor costs. If Dublin is like the UK, operator wages are > probably quite low and unions weak or non-existent. In this case labor costs > are not as important as in countries where workers are better paid. > The cheaper cost from larger vehicles argument is based largely on myth. Cost structures are complex, and in a great many cases bus costs come in well below rail for equivalent volumes of service ata given quality level. I interviewed dozens of people who came out with the claim that trains were cheaper because "you only need one driver," and such imagery does influence decision makers. The reality is different. > 2) High peak to base ratios. Rail vehicles can have their rakes (or consists > in North America) lengthened at low marginal cost. Yes, but you still pay for the capital equipment sitting idle most of the day, and there are also system costs and oiperational issues to changing consists during the day -- and as I said, the cost of drivers is but one of many. Each unit of bus capacity > costs the same as the last on busways. The marginal cost for buses (and old > fashioned streetcars) actually increases during peak hours if they are in > mixed traffic operation. > But you cannot compare that situation with a rail one as you are not comparing like with like. Data shows that busway operating costs are substantially below rail equivalents. Please see my "whole system approach" paper on this, where I presented a great deal of data. > 3) Existing disused rail rights-of-way in decent locations can save a lot of > time and money for rail projects. And you can put buses on them as well if you really want to, but a major problem has been the use of such disused rights-of-way simply because they exist, and not because they follow useful routes. There are many examples of this across the States, for example in Sacramento where the light rail crosses industrial areas with difficult access to housing. > > 4) Where there is no way to avoid tunneling or huge suspension bridges. Once > this is necessary, then the cost of rail and electrification may not be such > a large incremental increase. Not every large city has the width of > right-of-way available that the main trunk line of TransMillenio in Bogota > requires. Creating such a corridor would require the same kind of massive > dislocation and disruption that motorways require. There also may be serious > water crossings. These are high-cost options. Of course, bus tunnels can be built, as in Seattle, but an alternative approach is to try to make existing surface-level infrastructure work better. > > 5) Lack of enforcement of bus lanes. So enforce them! Rail rights-of-way can be designed to > deter other vehicles. (Bus rights-of-way can also do this, in theory, but > there is often much pressure to let other vehicles fill the "empty space".) > This is not likely to happen with a well-designed busway. But, in certain cases, it may make sense to allow other vehicles in. For example, the extensive busway corridors built in Houston operate with carpools as well, thereby carrying a great volume of efficiently packed vehicles. Houston has documented substantial environmental improvement from its transportation developments, unmatched by any of the cities that have gone for rail. > 6) Corridors where development is going to intensify. Even if the demand is > met by buses at a reasonable frequency today, there may have to be a > continuous wall of them in the future. More misleading imagery. Rail systems operating in the street are disruptive as well. If there is a separate right of way, buses are no more of an impediment than trains. This becomes quite unattractive in > areas where there are many residences and/or pedestrians. It also means that > pedestrians have to be excluded. Fewer rail vehicles providing equal > capacity at much longer headways might make it possible to keep the > right-of-way more open. > > 7) System operating cost is relevant, not modal operating cost. This is > where the auditors and right-wing idealogues get it all wrong. In some > corridors it makes sense to transfer passengers to large trunk vehicles and > use the buses for higher frequency local feeders, circulators, and > tangential connectors. This increases costs greatly. Again, I have done a great deal of study on this and, time and again, bus feeder type financial performance is well below that of radial/trunk lines. When you covert from bus to rail you generally move from the costs of providing single-seat direct trunk services to having to operate feeder bus lines to the rail stations and then pay for the train costs as well. The combined cost is substantial, but rail advocates never include the bus feeder costs they have created in rail system costs. I absolutely agree that system rather than modal cost is most important -- that's why I wrote about a "whole-system approach." But we need to look at the evidence in a scientific way. Please, also, do not refer to "right-wing idealogues" to dismiss people whose opinions you don't care for. There are many people who care deeply about equity and do not like observing the damage done to the interests of those of lower income by projects which waste resources on ineffective rail developments while ignoring the basic-level bus improvements which could be achieved at a far lower cost. In this way, more service to more origin-destination > pairs is offered for an equal operating budget. This is even more true when > there are high peak-to-base ratios. As I have indicated, this is based on conjecture. Check out your facts. --Jonathan > > Eric > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brendan Finn" > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 5:40 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > For what it's worth : > > > > In Dublin we will soon have two new tram/LRT lines in operation. The UK > > National Audit seems to have triggered a little freedom of information > here. > > > > The Rail Procurement Agency (RPA) has entered into a contract with CONNEX > > who will operate the system. We are told that this contract will have a > > value of 20 million Euro per year. We are also told that the forecast > > carryings are 20 million passengers per year, and the forecast revenue > > (collected by RPA) is 20 million Euro per year. Following the UK National > > Audit, the RPA has assured us that the forecasting was done to > > "international standards" - whatever these actually are. > > > > The "optimistic" forecast, therefore, is that revenues barely cover direct > > operating cost. "Optimistic" means that there is zero contribution to the > > 700 million Euro plus investment, zero contribution to the maintenance > costs > > (not in the CONNEX contract), zero contribution to customer-facing > services > > such as ticketing and information, and zero surplus for future > development. > > Incredibly, that's the "optimistic" version based on the "international > > standard" forecasts. > > > > Forgive my cynicism as I point out that the capital investment on these > two > > LRT lines is equivalent to 4 years total costs (note : full costs, not > > subsidy) for the bus network which always has and always will carry the > vast > > majority of public transport passengers in Dublin. It is also about 10 > times > > greater than the extensive and excellent Quality Bus Corridor Network > which > > is well under way. > > > > Trams are very nice to use, and it was very considerate of previous > > generations to make the investments for many cities. They are truly a > legacy > > to any city. However, transport professionals should maintain their > > integrity and not pretend either that they make economic sense or that > they > > are the most effective mobility solution, especially when compared with > the > > very best bus-based alternatives. > > > > With best wishes, > > > > Brendan Finn. > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Alan Howes" > > To: ">" > > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:20 AM > > Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > > > I never suggested anyone should rely on the UK government's viewpoint (I > > gave that up myself a long time ago). I gave the information so that > people > > could find out why the UK government is doing what it is doing. > > > > My own view, FWIW, is that UK government policy has switched from being > too > > much pro-tram to being too much anti-tram - such abrupt policy changes are > > not helpful, but are unfortunately all too common. > > > > But I also feel that where cash for transport investment is scarce, as is > > often the case in the developing world (but should NOT be the case in the > UK > > which is crying out for better transport infrastructure), bus-based > systems > > can often offer better value for money than rail-based ones. An > over-short > > summary of my views, but I don't have time for more at present. > > > > Alan > > > > -- > > Alan Howes > > Associate Transport Planner > > Colin Buchanan and Partners > > > > 4 St Colme Street > > Edinburgh EH3 6AA > > Scotland > > email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk > > tel: (0)131 240 2892 (direct) > > (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) > > fax: (0)131 220 0232 > > www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ > > _______________________________ > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > > Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the > > addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If > you > > have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to > > this email. > > Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not > > constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of CBP, > do > > not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice > or > > opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions > > of business. > > We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software > > viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by > > software viruses. > > _______________________________ > > > > > > >>> Eric Bruun 25/04/04 23:09:06 >>> > > > > Normally, I just read and learn from this discussion group. But this is > the > > second time in the recent past that I simply have to say something. > > > > The UK is a very special case. The Central Government's definition of what > > is good performance is not the same as in Europe or in North America. > > Because of the Private Finance Initiative, the rates of return required > are > > higher than for public projects. Projects also might be based on the > > investors getting some of the fare revenue. The Croydon Tramlink in London > > would be considered a success elsewhere, but it is not a financial success > > for the private investors through no fault of their own. Transport for > > London sensibly is introducing Smart Cards with integrated fares, so that > > there are fewer fares collected than anticipated, but the investors are > not > > being compensated for this change of plans. > > > > This experience is causing potential investors to be cautious. It is not > > helped by the fact that the Government doesn't allow coordination with bus > > networks so that there may be massive duplicative service. > > > > The last two issues of Urban Transport International have had interesting > > articles about this. I would not rely only on the Government's viewpoint. > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alan P Howes > > Sent: Apr 25, 2004 9:54 PM > > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > Cc: Jerry Schneider > > Subject: [sustran] UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > That's two people now who have asked about the above. Most of the > > coverage I have seen of this is in the UK specialist magazines Local > > Transport Today and Transit - neither of which publish on-line. > > Though I will see if I can find an article to scan. > > > > There's some fairly good coverage though, on the BBC website at > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3651587.stm Useful links to follow too. > > > > Another source is the UK Department for Transport website. It's big, > > and I haven't yet found a definitive article. But if you take a look > > at - > > http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0170 > > [UK DfT > Home > Local Transport > Local transport plan - process and > > initiatives > Local transport capital settlements > Local transport > > plans settlement - December 2003] > > you will find details of DfT capital grants for local transport. Lots > > of busways - no trams! If you dig around on the DfT site you might > > find more. > > > > Then, hot off the press (April 23rd) there is a report from the UK > > National Audit Office at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm > > > > I haven't had time as yet to read the exec summary, let alone the full > > report. But basically it is pointing out the fact that tram schemes > > in the UK have mostly fallen short of meeting planned performance, and > > looks at why. > > > > Regards, Alan > > -- > > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > > > > > > > > > ----- Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 Transportation Engineering program School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 PO Box 4 Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 Intl: 662 524-6051 http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From kisansbc at vsnl.com Fri Apr 30 15:38:06 2004 From: kisansbc at vsnl.com (Kisan Mehta) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:08:06 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: More on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway References: <007c01c42b72$890aa9a0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> <01df01c42e31$46633b00$a9f845cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <000401c42e7d$b20e7c60$3226020a@im.eth.net> Dear Sustran friends, I have remained a watching bystander to the ongoing discussions on the comparision between rail and bus service costs as well as on the impact of motor cycles on quality of bus travel. Eric's submission brought another aspect in my mind. We get a totally different picture when we look to the conditions prevailing in the crowded, congested urban centres in the developing, shall we say the poor, world. Installing dedicated right-of-way train service is terribly costly capitalwise compared to starting a bus service which can be started initally with the money that can be diverted from public resources. Routing can be changed to suit demand but more often to meet political and commercial pressures. But we cannot say that rail costs are higher than those of buses. Mumbai has electric commuter train service laid in the late 1930s by the Central Government. Railways are in the federal government domain and it is difficult to get the fed rlys to expand to meet the growing needs. Public bus service is a municipalised service which can be and has expanded at comparateily lower cost. Mumbai suburban services provide about 14 million journeys which is about 40% of the total train journeys provided through out the country admeasuring 4 million + sq km in area. Indian railways are second largest in the world having the largest staff in the world. Mumbai trains carry commuters at suffocation level that is about 4 times the licenced carrying capacity. There is nothing like peak and off-peak periods. They are either high peak or suffocation peak periods over 22 hours a day running. Susurban services share track, station, signalling facilites with intercity trains. Per passenger cost of railway service is definitely lower than that of the buses. Per km train fares are lower. Season ticket rates enabling unlimited joruneys during a month or quarter are much lower. Still trains service has a reaonable surplus. Municipalised BEST service provide 4.8 million journeys a day with 3,600 buses. Turn around is high. BEST services are not allotted any priority for use of roads. In fact many roads open to private cars are closed to the BEST buses. Buses are subjected to heavy delays. Bus fares are decided by the government irrespective of the cost considerations. In Mumbai and I have noticed in cities of the developing countries, bus services are governed and their development are not in consonance with the needs. Minimum bus fare are Rs 3.50 and 5.00 for ordinary and express buses (Rs 46 equivalent ot a US $). Yet large number of residents walk as they cannot afford the bus fare. No subsidy or support is extended by the authorities. In fact, the government collects about 15% of every bus ticket by way of taxes which is not charged to private vehicles having exclusive roads, flyovers, elevated roads built at public cost. Municipality levies an annual charges on the BEST, again not charged to private vehicles. The BEST Undertaking operating bus service in the whole Mumbai and distributing electricity in a small area makes heavy losses in the Bus Division which is made good by the surplus in the Electric Supply division. We feel that it would be unjust to compare different modes of services only on the basis of financial cost or capital outlay. Many extreneous factors influence the services, efficiency, costs etc. This imbalance appears to emanate from the policies by the World Bank and other financial instititions, approach (mindset) of the politicians, their capacity to extract money from World Bank et al. The World Bank extended loan for Mumbai Urban Transport Project in which its share in road construction subprojects is 79%, rly expansion 43% and bus expansion is fixed at 2.6% of the total project cost. Road management and pricing for controlling the storing and movement of private cars are non-existant. Bank though has not forgotten to insist on providing computerised traffic signalling to provide uninterrupted speed to private vehicles and hindrance to buses as well as acquiring of terribly expensive stainless train compartment reducing total number of comparatments to be added during the loan period.. The only and most tragic World Bank condition is on the BEST and that is the BEST should stop using the surplus of the Electricity Divn to cover up the shortfall in the Bus Divn and has insisted that the BEST raises its fares adequately to meet the shortfall and curtail bus services to remove the loss. The Bank has not provided for construction of pavements though it bemoans high rate of road accidents in which, it admits, pedestrians form 95% of the victims. On average 1`0 pedestrians die a day due to road accidents and 20 commuters due to falling from moving trains. The government feeling the ease in obtaining World Bank loan has finalised another more ambitious proposal for construction of elevated roads in the name of environmental improvement. The proposal is before the World Bank. So we can see as to how the needs of the rich are met to claim poverty reduction. There is great difference between the precept and practice. In the poor countries the lenders decide the course of development. Best wishes. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan E. D. Richmond" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 8:53 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: More on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Eric Bruun wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Sustran readers: > > > > Covering operating costs, even by the definition used in Dublin, would be > > considered an excellent result in most of the richer cities in Europe and > > North America. But this definition of covering operating cost is > > problematic, of I will mention more below. > > > > As I have said before, I support quality bus network additions, but they are > > not necessarily the equal of rail projects. I don't know the circumstances > > of the specific alignments in Dublin, but here are some considerations that > > can often makes rail a better alternative: > > > > 1) High labor costs. If demand is high and service is frequent, then very > > large vehicles cut labor costs. If Dublin is like the UK, operator wages are > > probably quite low and unions weak or non-existent. In this case labor costs > > are not as important as in countries where workers are better paid. > > > > The cheaper cost from larger vehicles argument is based largely on myth. > Cost structures are complex, and in a great many cases bus costs come in > well below rail for equivalent volumes of service ata given quality level. > I interviewed dozens of people who came out with the claim that trains > were cheaper because "you only need one driver," and such imagery does > influence decision makers. The reality is different. > > > > 2) High peak to base ratios. Rail vehicles can have their rakes (or consists > > in North America) lengthened at low marginal cost. > > Yes, but you still pay for the capital equipment sitting idle most of the > day, and there are also system costs and oiperational issues to changing > consists during the day -- and as I said, the cost of drivers is but one > of many. > > > Each unit of bus capacity > > costs the same as the last on busways. The marginal cost for buses (and old > > fashioned streetcars) actually increases during peak hours if they are in > > mixed traffic operation. > > > > But you cannot compare that situation with a rail one as you are not > comparing like with like. Data shows that busway operating costs are > substantially below rail equivalents. Please see my "whole system > approach" paper on this, where I presented a great deal of data. > > > > > 3) Existing disused rail rights-of-way in decent locations can save a lot of > > time and money for rail projects. > > And you can put buses on them as well if you really want to, but a major > problem has been the use of such disused rights-of-way simply because they > exist, and not because they follow useful routes. There are many examples > of this across the States, for example in Sacramento where the light rail > crosses industrial areas with difficult access to housing. > > > > > > 4) Where there is no way to avoid tunneling or huge suspension bridges. Once > > this is necessary, then the cost of rail and electrification may not be such > > a large incremental increase. Not every large city has the width of > > right-of-way available that the main trunk line of TransMillenio in Bogota > > requires. Creating such a corridor would require the same kind of massive > > dislocation and disruption that motorways require. There also may be serious > > water crossings. > > These are high-cost options. Of course, bus tunnels can be built, as in > Seattle, but an alternative approach is to try to make existing > surface-level infrastructure work better. > > > > > > 5) Lack of enforcement of bus lanes. > > So enforce them! > > Rail rights-of-way can be designed to > > deter other vehicles. (Bus rights-of-way can also do this, in theory, but > > there is often much pressure to let other vehicles fill the "empty space".) > > > > This is not likely to happen with a well-designed busway. But, in certain > cases, it may make sense to allow other vehicles in. For example, the > extensive busway corridors built in Houston operate with carpools as well, > thereby carrying a great volume of efficiently packed vehicles. Houston > has documented substantial environmental improvement from its transportation > developments, unmatched by any of the cities that have gone for rail. > > > > 6) Corridors where development is going to intensify. Even if the demand is > > met by buses at a reasonable frequency today, there may have to be a > > continuous wall of them in the future. > > More misleading imagery. Rail systems operating in the street are > disruptive as well. If there is a separate right of way, buses are no more > of an impediment than trains. > > This becomes quite unattractive in > > areas where there are many residences and/or pedestrians. It also means that > > pedestrians have to be excluded. Fewer rail vehicles providing equal > > capacity at much longer headways might make it possible to keep the > > right-of-way more open. > > > > 7) System operating cost is relevant, not modal operating cost. This is > > where the auditors and right-wing idealogues get it all wrong. In some > > corridors it makes sense to transfer passengers to large trunk vehicles and > > use the buses for higher frequency local feeders, circulators, and > > tangential connectors. > > This increases costs greatly. Again, I have done a great deal of study on > this and, time and again, bus feeder type financial performance is well > below that of radial/trunk lines. When you covert from bus to rail you > generally move from the costs of providing single-seat direct trunk > services to having to operate feeder bus lines to the rail stations and > then pay for the train costs as well. The combined cost is substantial, > but rail advocates never include the bus feeder costs they have created in > rail system costs. I absolutely agree that system rather than modal cost > is most important -- that's why I wrote about a "whole-system approach." > But we need to look at the evidence in a scientific way. Please, also, do > not refer to "right-wing idealogues" to dismiss people whose opinions you > don't care for. There are many people who care deeply about equity and do > not like observing the damage done to the interests of those of lower > income by projects which waste resources on ineffective rail developments > while ignoring the basic-level bus improvements which could be achieved at > a far lower cost. > > > In this way, more service to more origin-destination > > pairs is offered for an equal operating budget. This is even more true when > > there are high peak-to-base ratios. > > As I have indicated, this is based on conjecture. Check out your facts. > > --Jonathan > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brendan Finn" > > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > > > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 5:40 AM > > Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > > > > For what it's worth : > > > > > > In Dublin we will soon have two new tram/LRT lines in operation. The UK > > > National Audit seems to have triggered a little freedom of information > > here. > > > > > > The Rail Procurement Agency (RPA) has entered into a contract with CONNEX > > > who will operate the system. We are told that this contract will have a > > > value of 20 million Euro per year. We are also told that the forecast > > > carryings are 20 million passengers per year, and the forecast revenue > > > (collected by RPA) is 20 million Euro per year. Following the UK National > > > Audit, the RPA has assured us that the forecasting was done to > > > "international standards" - whatever these actually are. > > > > > > The "optimistic" forecast, therefore, is that revenues barely cover direct > > > operating cost. "Optimistic" means that there is zero contribution to the > > > 700 million Euro plus investment, zero contribution to the maintenance > > costs > > > (not in the CONNEX contract), zero contribution to customer-facing > > services > > > such as ticketing and information, and zero surplus for future > > development. > > > Incredibly, that's the "optimistic" version based on the "international > > > standard" forecasts. > > > > > > Forgive my cynicism as I point out that the capital investment on these > > two > > > LRT lines is equivalent to 4 years total costs (note : full costs, not > > > subsidy) for the bus network which always has and always will carry the > > vast > > > majority of public transport passengers in Dublin. It is also about 10 > > times > > > greater than the extensive and excellent Quality Bus Corridor Network > > which > > > is well under way. > > > > > > Trams are very nice to use, and it was very considerate of previous > > > generations to make the investments for many cities. They are truly a > > legacy > > > to any city. However, transport professionals should maintain their > > > integrity and not pretend either that they make economic sense or that > > they > > > are the most effective mobility solution, especially when compared with > > the > > > very best bus-based alternatives. > > > > > > With best wishes, > > > > > > Brendan Finn. > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Alan Howes" > > > To: ">" > > > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:20 AM > > > Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > > > > > > I never suggested anyone should rely on the UK government's viewpoint (I > > > gave that up myself a long time ago). I gave the information so that > > people > > > could find out why the UK government is doing what it is doing. > > > > > > My own view, FWIW, is that UK government policy has switched from being > > too > > > much pro-tram to being too much anti-tram - such abrupt policy changes are > > > not helpful, but are unfortunately all too common. > > > > > > But I also feel that where cash for transport investment is scarce, as is > > > often the case in the developing world (but should NOT be the case in the > > UK > > > which is crying out for better transport infrastructure), bus-based > > systems > > > can often offer better value for money than rail-based ones. An > > over-short > > > summary of my views, but I don't have time for more at present. > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > -- > > > Alan Howes > > > Associate Transport Planner > > > Colin Buchanan and Partners > > > > > > 4 St Colme Street > > > Edinburgh EH3 6AA > > > Scotland > > > email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk > > > tel: (0)131 240 2892 (direct) > > > (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) > > > (0)7952 464335 (mobile) > > > fax: (0)131 220 0232 > > > www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ > > > _______________________________ > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > > > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > > > Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the > > > addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If > > you > > > have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to > > > this email. > > > Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not > > > constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of CBP, > > do > > > not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice > > or > > > opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions > > > of business. > > > We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software > > > viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by > > > software viruses. > > > _______________________________ > > > > > > > > > >>> Eric Bruun 25/04/04 23:09:06 >>> > > > > > > Normally, I just read and learn from this discussion group. But this is > > the > > > second time in the recent past that I simply have to say something. > > > > > > The UK is a very special case. The Central Government's definition of what > > > is good performance is not the same as in Europe or in North America. > > > Because of the Private Finance Initiative, the rates of return required > > are > > > higher than for public projects. Projects also might be based on the > > > investors getting some of the fare revenue. The Croydon Tramlink in London > > > would be considered a success elsewhere, but it is not a financial success > > > for the private investors through no fault of their own. Transport for > > > London sensibly is introducing Smart Cards with integrated fares, so that > > > there are fewer fares collected than anticipated, but the investors are > > not > > > being compensated for this change of plans. > > > > > > This experience is causing potential investors to be cautious. It is not > > > helped by the fact that the Government doesn't allow coordination with bus > > > networks so that there may be massive duplicative service. > > > > > > The last two issues of Urban Transport International have had interesting > > > articles about this. I would not rely only on the Government's viewpoint. > > > > > > Eric Bruun > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Alan P Howes > > > Sent: Apr 25, 2004 9:54 PM > > > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > > Cc: Jerry Schneider > > > Subject: [sustran] UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > > > That's two people now who have asked about the above. Most of the > > > coverage I have seen of this is in the UK specialist magazines Local > > > Transport Today and Transit - neither of which publish on-line. > > > Though I will see if I can find an article to scan. > > > > > > There's some fairly good coverage though, on the BBC website at > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3651587.stm Useful links to follow too. > > > > > > Another source is the UK Department for Transport website. It's big, > > > and I haven't yet found a definitive article. But if you take a look > > > at - > > > http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0170 > > > [UK DfT > Home > Local Transport > Local transport plan - process and > > > initiatives > Local transport capital settlements > Local transport > > > plans settlement - December 2003] > > > you will find details of DfT capital grants for local transport. Lots > > > of busways - no trams! If you dig around on the DfT site you might > > > find more. > > > > > > Then, hot off the press (April 23rd) there is a report from the UK > > > National Audit Office at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm > > > > > > I haven't had time as yet to read the exec summary, let alone the full > > > report. But basically it is pointing out the fact that tram schemes > > > in the UK have mostly fallen short of meeting planned performance, and > > > looks at why. > > > > > > Regards, Alan > > > -- > > > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > > > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > > > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- > > Jonathan E. D. Richmond 02 524-5510 (office) > Visiting Fellow Intl.: 662 524-5510 > Transportation Engineering program > School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B 02 524-8257 (home) > Asian Institute of Technology Intl.: 662 524-8257 > PO Box 4 > Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120 02 524-5509 (fax) > Thailand Intl: 662 524-5509 > > e-mail: richmond@ait.ac.th Secretary: Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa > richmond@alum.mit.edu 02 524-6051 > Intl: 662 524-6051 > http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ > From etts at indigo.ie Fri Apr 30 16:47:42 2004 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:47:42 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: More on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway References: <007c01c42b72$890aa9a0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> <01df01c42e31$46633b00$a9f845cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <000601c42e87$6b45dda0$0101a8c0@fujitsu83p69tb> Dear Eric, I would offer the following in response to your perspective. I keep it specific to the Dublin LRT case so anyone can take it or leave it based on the single case study : Dublin will open two LRT lines later this year. Only covering operating costs (which is the OPTIMISTIC scenario) means that there is no contribution to the 700+ million euro investment, no contribution to track and system maintenance, no contribution to customer facing services, and no contribution to system development. That is a lot of public money now, and continuing indefinitely into the future. Dublin currently has a peak fleet requirement of about 900 large buses, covers about 75% of its total costs (including investment). It carries about 85% of the city's public transport movements, the balance being mostly the suburban heavy rail network. The specific LRT alignments are not any better than the Quality Bus Network (QBN) ones, nor is the forecast operating speed of the LRT particularly better than the best of the QBNs. The two LRT lines will not intersect, and they will not be able to run on the suburban rail tracks. Therefore, they are simply two independent lines. Your points in turn : 1) Dublin still has an effective public monopoly on passenger transport. Wages are not low, unions are strong, and labour costs are a significant factor. 2) I do not think there is the same flexibility for modern tram systems, where they are normally integrated 2- or 3-car sets. I have seen in Poland and Russia where single car trams operate instead of 2-car or 3-car, but this is always dropping a car rather than an ability to exploit cheap extra capacity. Besides, in Dublin the issue is more likely to be one of reaching a viable level of demand (unless the bus services are decimated to force mode transfer). Are you mixing here the characteristics of heavy/suburban rail and light rail ? 3) One of the LRT lines is on a disused rail line, the other on an alignment which has been preserved for more than 20 years for a busway. Thus, the cost savings have already been achieved. I dread to think of the cost and the delays if the land had to be bought from scratch. 4) No tunnels on this one. Originally there should have been one at St. Stephen's Green (where one LRT line will now terminate) but they eventually decided against it on cost grounds, so now it does not connect with the second line. There is one modest span bridge at Dundrum, replacing the old rail bridge that was pulled down in the 60's. Nothing special in engineering terms, it's basically just a flyover, although it looks quite nice. The QBN uses existing streetspace, with some minor traffic engineering works and junction realignment. Total cost for a few hundred km. is about 80 million Euro. It has the double effect of prioritising the bus services, and restricting the space available to cars on the key arteries at operational hours (normally 0700-1900, Mon-Sat). Since there is no physical separation, the road space is available outside those hours, and can be used in emergency. 5) Enforcement of bus lanes has been patchy since they were introduced here in 1981, but has greatly improved since the QBN concept. Generally, it is not a problem. Bus lanes which actually have buses in them are usually self-enforcing. BTW, taxis with passengers are also allowed to use them, as are cyclists - except for contraflow lanes, which are bus only. Almost all the QBN has reasonable bus flows throughout the day, although there are a few that I would question. People don't often park in bus lanes during operational hours, and delivery trucks have also got the message since it's very visible what you are doing. The big upside of no separation is cost and speed of implementation, the ability to squeeze a third lane out of a two lane street, and the flexibility of the use of the road. The big downside is the guy with two wheels on or over the white line. But generally it works. 6) The "continuous wall" of buses has not yet been a phenomenon to worry the good folk of Dublin. On the Stillorgan Road QBC (QB Corridor) they average about 1 per minute. At the moment, the high level of on-bus ticketing, lack of automatic priority at traffic signals, and need for some redesign of bus stopping places place a yet-unreached upper limit, but getting these factors right will allow a quite significant increase in throughput. I'd particularly like to see more express or limited-stop services - there are currently licencing restrictions on these - and this would greatly facilitate the outlying and developing areas. Again, are you mixing the characteristics of heavy and light rail ? This thread began specifically on light-rail and busway. I don't understand the reference to pedestrians. Since most bus users arrive/leave the stop on foot, it would be rather silly not to properly accommodate pedestrians. 7) In the Dublin case, there are no obvious system-wide v/ modal operating cost benefits. The two LRT lines are stand-alone. The bus services actually serve places along the arteries as well as performing line-haul. For the 750 million euro it's cost us (so far) we could replace the entire Dublin bus fleet twice (2 by 1,000 buses at 200,000 euro) over a 25-year period, implement the QBN (80 million), capital finance a fleet of 2,000 small buses four times (short life) for large-scale DRT (4 by 2,000 by 30,000 euro) and still have the price of integrated ticketing and AVM left over. These services would all be profitable or marginal excluding investment costs. BTW, I wear by left-wing colours on my sleeve. Where I live and in the countries I work, funding for public purposes is hard enough to come by, and to hold on to. The financial viability of services means you can do an awful lot more with the available funds. Footnote : In Ireland, a lot of us had to fight very hard to get funding for local rural services. Eventually in 2001 the Govt. made about 4 million euro available for the Rural Transport Initiative. This was disbursed to 35 different community organisations who each got many local and flexible mobility services going in all corners of Ireland. It was highly successful in giving mobility to people previously dependent on lift-giving. The Govt. is now quietly cutting back that funding. The capital cost alone of the LRT could have kept such a scheme going for 200 years. As I say, this information is specific to Dublin, maybe it is irrelevant anywhere else. With best wishes, Brendan Finn. _______________________________________________________________________ Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Bruun" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 10:10 PM Subject: [sustran] More on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > Dear Sustran readers: > > Covering operating costs, even by the definition used in Dublin, would be > considered an excellent result in most of the richer cities in Europe and > North America. But this definition of covering operating cost is > problematic, of I will mention more below. > > As I have said before, I support quality bus network additions, but they are > not necessarily the equal of rail projects. I don't know the circumstances > of the specific alignments in Dublin, but here are some considerations that > can often makes rail a better alternative: > > 1) High labor costs. If demand is high and service is frequent, then very > large vehicles cut labor costs. If Dublin is like the UK, operator wages are > probably quite low and unions weak or non-existent. In this case labor costs > are not as important as in countries where workers are better paid. > > 2) High peak to base ratios. Rail vehicles can have their rakes (or consists > in North America) lengthened at low marginal cost. Each unit of bus capacity > costs the same as the last on busways. The marginal cost for buses (and old > fashioned streetcars) actually increases during peak hours if they are in > mixed traffic operation. > > 3) Existing disused rail rights-of-way in decent locations can save a lot of > time and money for rail projects. > > 4) Where there is no way to avoid tunneling or huge suspension bridges. Once > this is necessary, then the cost of rail and electrification may not be such > a large incremental increase. Not every large city has the width of > right-of-way available that the main trunk line of TransMillenio in Bogota > requires. Creating such a corridor would require the same kind of massive > dislocation and disruption that motorways require. There also may be serious > water crossings. > > 5) Lack of enforcement of bus lanes. Rail rights-of-way can be designed to > deter other vehicles. (Bus rights-of-way can also do this, in theory, but > there is often much pressure to let other vehicles fill the "empty space".) > > 6) Corridors where development is going to intensify. Even if the demand is > met by buses at a reasonable frequency today, there may have to be a > continuous wall of them in the future. This becomes quite unattractive in > areas where there are many residences and/or pedestrians. It also means that > pedestrians have to be excluded. Fewer rail vehicles providing equal > capacity at much longer headways might make it possible to keep the > right-of-way more open. > > 7) System operating cost is relevant, not modal operating cost. This is > where the auditors and right-wing idealogues get it all wrong. In some > corridors it makes sense to transfer passengers to large trunk vehicles and > use the buses for higher frequency local feeders, circulators, and > tangential connectors. In this way, more service to more origin-destination > pairs is offered for an equal operating budget. This is even more true when > there are high peak-to-base ratios. > > Eric > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brendan Finn" > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 5:40 AM > Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway > > > > For what it's worth : > > > > In Dublin we will soon have two new tram/LRT lines in operation. The UK > > National Audit seems to have triggered a little freedom of information > here. > > > > The Rail Procurement Agency (RPA) has entered into a contract with CONNEX > > who will operate the system. We are told that this contract will have a > > value of 20 million Euro per year. We are also told that the forecast > > carryings are 20 million passengers per year, and the forecast revenue > > (collected by RPA) is 20 million Euro per year. Following the UK National > > Audit, the RPA has assured us that the forecasting was done to > > "international standards" - whatever these actually are. > > > > The "optimistic" forecast, therefore, is that revenues barely cover direct > > operating cost. "Optimistic" means that there is zero contribution to the > > 700 million Euro plus investment, zero contribution to the maintenance > costs > > (not in the CONNEX contract), zero contribution to customer-facing > services > > such as ticketing and information, and zero surplus for future > development. > > Incredibly, that's the "optimistic" version based on the "international > > standard" forecasts. > > > > Forgive my cynicism as I point out that the capital investment on these > two > > LRT lines is equivalent to 4 years total costs (note : full costs, not > > subsidy) for the bus network which always has and always will carry the > vast > > majority of public transport passengers in Dublin. It is also about 10 > times > > greater than the extensive and excellent Quality Bus Corridor Network > which > > is well under way. > > > > Trams are very nice to use, and it was very considerate of previous > > generations to make the investments for many cities. They are truly a > legacy > > to any city. However, transport professionals should maintain their > > integrity and not pretend either that they make economic sense or that > they > > are the most effective mobility solution, especially when compared with > the > > very best bus-based alternatives. > > > > With best wishes, > > > > Brendan Finn. > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Contact details are : e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 > > ----- Original Message -----