From pascaldesmond at eircom.net Mon Mar 8 22:53:49 2004 From: pascaldesmond at eircom.net (Pascal Desmond) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 13:53:49 +0000 Subject: [sustran] World Transport Policy & Practice Volume 9, Number 4, 2003 now available Message-ID: Volume 9, Number 4, 2003, of "World Transport Policy & Practice", a quarterly journal edited by Professor John Whitelegg, is available free of charge as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file at http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/WTPPhome.html Contents of Volume 9, Number 4, 2003: Sustainability & Road User Charging in UK Cities by Ben Winterton & William Sheate Speed Elasticity of Mileage Demand by Rudolf Pfleiderer & Martin Dieterich Gender equality & transport policy in Sweden by Merritt Polk Petroleum culture versus Earth living - The fallacy of the technofix Jan Lundberg ***** DOWNLOAD ADVICE If you are using Windows, please ensure that you 'right click' your mouse. This will download the file to your desktop for viewing off-line. This is standard Windows procedure for downloading files. ***** World Transport Policy & Practice Eco-Logica Ltd., 53 Derwent Road, LANCASTER, LA1 3ES. U.K. telephone +44 1524 63175 Editor: Professor John Whitelegg Business manager: Pascal Desmond http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/WTPPhome.html From reginamanzo at hotmail.com Fri Mar 12 11:15:07 2004 From: reginamanzo at hotmail.com (Regina Manzo) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:15:07 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Hong Kong's proposed large reclamation of the Harbour for a bypass of Central Message-ID: About one million square feet of reclamation into the harbour in Hong Kong is being proposed and contested by the public, the rationale for which is the disputed need for a road bypass of Central and Wan Chai. The reclamation is way in excess of what would be needed to support the bypass, and 5.1 hectares will be sold to developers for commercial development. An existing "Protection of the Harbour" law has been used to try to stop the proposed reclamation, as well as transport analyses saying the road is not needed. The below letter from the group Save Our Shorelines (SOS) illustrates the latest legal developments. And asks for assistance. The slightly garbled text at the end explains more of the recent legal appeals. For your information, and if anyone can assist. Gina Manzo, AICP Singapore _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From reginamanzo at hotmail.com Fri Mar 12 11:23:46 2004 From: reginamanzo at hotmail.com (Regina Manzo) Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:23:46 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Hong Kong's proposed large reclamation of the Harbour for abypass of Central Message-ID: Dear SusTran - sorry to resend - I don't think the message text came through before. Gina From: "Regina Manzo" About one million square feet of reclamation into the harbour in Hong Kong is being proposed and contested by the public, the rationale for which is the disputed need for a road bypass of Central and Wan Chai. The reclamation is way in excess of what would be needed to support the bypass, and 5.1 hectares will be sold to developers for commercial development. An existing "Protection of the Harbour" law has been used to try to stop the proposed reclamation, as well as transport analyses saying the road is not needed. The below letter from the group Save Our Shorelines (SOS) illustrates the latest legal developments. And asks for assistance. The slightly garbled text at the end explains more of the recent legal appeals. For your information, and if anyone can assist. Gina Manzo, AICP Singapore -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From : Save our Shorelines To : "John Bowden" Subject : Call for letters and volunteers Sent : Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:39 PM Dear SOS members and friends, A lot has happened in the last few days and in short, it isn't over yet. The newspapers may have given the impression that this week's judgment allows the Central Reclamation to proceed, but actually it didn't rule directly on that at all. What it did say is that the Chief Executive, through ExCo, is within his legal rights, and can make any decision he wants to with the project, but does not necessarily need to return it to the Town Planning Board. Meanwhile, the Wanchai sections are being re-planned by the Town Planning Board. (Christine Loh's summary is at the very bottom of this email) Some pundits may have stated that there is no point in people rallying or protesting about these things because the decision lies in the hands of ExCo and the CE who will do what they think is best for Hong Kong and that confronting them only makes them dig their heels in. This isn't right. No one in government can be expected to make decisions to satisfy the community if the community don't let them know what they want. SOS, in accepting the Court Ruling, believes that we must go to the top. If the ultimate decision on the future of the Harbour is in the hands of Mr. Tung we would like to be sure that he is receiving the best advice and guidance on the matter. We don't want to 'beat' the government, or to make it lose face in the public view. Instead we would prefer to see a mature, responsive government that can take in what people are saying to it and model its decisions accordingly, even if this means changing direction to serve the people. We believe that those people will have more respect for a government that says "OK, we have heard your calls and although it means making a few changes we are willing to compromise" Admitting to a mistake is often better than adding to it. To show that the issue is still very much open and that the final form of Hong Kong's harbour shoreline can still be influenced by your opinions SOS will be holding an ENCOURAGEMENT DRIVE this Friday afternoon (Mar 12) and Saturday to collect letters, poems and ribbons from the public to give to Mr. Tung to help him in deciding that the reclamation is illegal and should be postponed, when he next meets with ExCo. Naturally we hope that he will acknowledge the depth of public feeling on the issue, the fact that the project is illegal, and decide for himself - despite the poor counsel he is getting from some ExCo members, to postpone and scale back the reclamation project in Central. But he needs to hear that from you. Please join our SOS representative at any time between 1pm and 6pm on Friday March 12th and 10 am to 6pm Saturday March 13th near Queens Pier in Central and drop your messages into the SOS box. Ask us questions if you want to know more about the shoreline issues at stake here. Mr. Tung needs your advice to make the right decisions for Hong Kong's Harbour. You can also reply by email, and we'll drop it in the box for you. SOS members, we would very much like Chinese speaking volunteers to join us at Queens Pier, this is your chance to support the association if you can spare just a few minutes on Friday or Saturday. LOOK FOR THE SOS BANNER John Bowden Chairman Save our Shorelines www.sos.org.hk Society for Protection of the Harbour Limited 保 護 海 港 協 會 有 限 公 司 2006, One Pacific Place, Tel (852) 2845-8138 88 Queensway, Hong Kong Fax (852) 2845-5964 Re: Central Reclamation Phase III HCAL 102 of 2003 The Central Reclamation Judicial Review was necessitated by the recent Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) Judgment in respect of the Wanchai Judicial Review. The CFA Judgment pronounced that the Government has been using the wrong interpretation and application of the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and that the decision affected all reclamation proposals by the Government. This CFA decision therefore also affects the Central Reclamation Outline Zoning Plan (“the Plan”) which was unlawfully made and needs to be reviewed in accordance with the ‘overriding public needs’ test prescribed by the CFA Judgment. The Harbour Society had written to the Chief Executive-in-Council (“Exco”) that the Plan be reviewed by the Town Planning Board (“the Board”) which was the maker of the original Plan. Exco refused to do so. The Harbour Society therefore had no alternative but to institute the Central Reclamation Judicial Review to seek the Court’s assistance to order the Government to send the Plan back to the Town Planning Board for review in order to ensure that the Plan will properly complied with the ‘overriding public need’ test. The Society based its case on the following grounds:- 1. As the Plan was unlawfully made, it must be reviewed by the Board as the original maker of the plan. Under the Town Planning Ordinance, the Board is the only authority empowered by law to make outline zoning plans for Hong Kong and not Exco. 2. Exco’s decisions are made behind close doors and there is no opportunity for public objections whereas the procedure under the Town Planning Ordinance (“TPO”) provides for public participation in the plan making process by the Board. Under the TPO, the Board must consult the public and give the public an opportunity of raising objections. Such public participation and public objections procedure are not available in Exco’s decision making process. 3. Exco is the applicant of reclamation and should not be the judge of its own cause. 4. The plan includes one million square feet of reclamation. It is not needed for the Central Wanchai Bypass which is being used by Exco to justify the Central Reclamation. Furthermore 5.1 hectares are for commercial use and will be sold to developers for commercial development. The ‘overriding public need’ test requires Exco to show that there is a compelling present need for reclamation which must be the minimum and there must be no reasonable alternative. Therefore the Plan on the face of it does not comply with the CFA Judgment as the proposed reclamation is excessive. The present Judgment does not pronounce the Central Reclamation to be lawful nor that the Plan complies with the test prescribed by the CFA Judgment. The present Judgment only pronounces that Exco has no legal duty to refer the plan to the Board for review. Nevertheless in Paragraph 98 of the Judgment. The Judge said: “It may well have been preferable to remit the Plan to the Board, at least regarding the extent of reclamation”. Therefore even the Judge could see the good sense in Exco referring the plan to the Board for review even if Exco had no legal duty to do so. Our Society is examining the present Judgment and seeking Counsel’s advice on the possibility and advisability of an appeal. _________________________________________________________________ One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page download MSN Toolbar now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ From ghawkes at sover.net Sat Mar 13 23:38:28 2004 From: ghawkes at sover.net (Gerry Hawkes) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 09:38:28 -0500 Subject: [sustran] 117 Deaths Each Day Message-ID: <00c801c40908$da120960$70a372d8@vectra> Following is an article on automobile deaths from today's New York Times online at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/13/opinion/13KRIS.html?th Gerry Hawkes www.eco-systems.org * * * * * * * * * OP-ED COLUMNIST 117 Deaths Each Day By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: March 13, 2004 Here's a pop quiz. Rank the following in order of the number of American lives they claim in a typical year: food, guns, terrorists, flu and cars. Ready? The most deadly are automobiles, which kill 117 Americans a day, or nearly 43,000 a year. Then comes flu, which (along with pneumonia, its associated disease) kills 36,000 people. Third is guns: 26,000 deaths. Fourth, food-borne illness: 5,000. And finally, terrorism, which in a typical year claims virtually no U.S. lives - with horrific exceptions like 2001. But antiterrorism efforts get most of the attention and the resources. To a point, that's sensible. The train bombings in Madrid are a reminder of our vulnerability. President Bush is right to emphasize the risk from W.M.D., because a single nuclear bomb could claim 500,000 lives. Still, we need a balance in confronting threats, and I don't think we've found it. Watch President Bush's campaign ads, and it's clear that he's overwhelmingly focused on the war on terrorism - in 2001, he called it "my primary focus." As he put it this year, "I'm a war president." Mr. Bush's intensity and unwavering purpose comforted the nation in the aftermath of 9/11. But America is too complex to have national policy reduced to the single overarching priority of counterterrorism. "It's an important threat, but it cannot be the organizing principle of our foreign policy," argues Ivo Daalder, a former national security official who is co-author of "America Unbound," an excellent (and respectful) book about Mr. Bush's administration. "There are worse threats out there. Climate change. H.I.V./AIDS." Or, I would say, nuclear proliferation. Or cars. Vehicle fatalities don't get attention because they occur in ones and twos. If people died at the same rate but in one horrifying crash a month that killed 3,500 people, then Mr. Bush and Congress would speedily make auto safety a priority and save thousands of lives a year. As Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has said: "If we had 115 people die a day in aviation crashes, we wouldn't have a plane in the sky." "Driving a car is one of the most dangerous things we do," note Barry Nalebuff and Ian Ayres, two Yale professors, in their book about innovative thinking, "Why Not?" They note that a major effort by Sweden has reduced traffic deaths by encouraging seat belt use, converting intersections to traffic circles (they "soothe" traffic), replacing rigid guardrails with new rails or cables that absorb or "catch" cars, and exhorting cyclists to wear helmets. The upshot is that Sweden 's accident rate is one of the lowest in the world. "If the United States could achieve Sweden's current standard, this would save 12,500 lives per year," the authors say. Granted, it seems less presidential to call for more guardrails than to invade Middle Eastern countries. And, in fairness, President Bush's head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Dr. Jeffrey Runge, is pushing hard to save lives in unheralded ways, from improving S.U.V. design to getting drivers to check their tire pressure. A month before Dr. Runge took up his post, several teenagers were rushed to the hospital where he worked as an emergency room physician. The driver in their car, a 17-year-old redhead named Sarah Longstreet, was known in her high school for her friendliness and her Bible Club activities. She wore a seat belt and her air bag inflated, but she died when a Ford Explorer veered across the center line and plowed right over the hood of her Mazda. That incompatibility in the two cars' designs made her one more unnecessary auto fatality - and she became "sort of an angel to me," Dr. Runge said. So when I asked him about priorities, he answered this way: "First off, we have to do everything we're doing for counterterrorism," he said. "There's nothing that we're doing that we shouldn't be doing, and you can make the case that we should be doing more. . . . However, we're still losing 115 people a day on the highways, and basically the perpetrators of those deaths also fit within a profile" - such as alcohol abusers. Governing the U.S. is like playing 200 simultaneous chess matches (while whiny columnists second-guess every move on every board). The terrorism chessboard is among the most important, but if we could just devote a bit more energy to the others, we could save thousands of lives - including the life of the next Sarah Longstreet. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040313/3cda772b/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 45 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040313/3cda772b/attachment.gif From sam_aminul at yahoo.com Fri Mar 19 19:51:04 2004 From: sam_aminul at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?SAM=20Aminul=20Hoque?=) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:51:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [sustran] fare deregulation and bus Message-ID: <20040319105104.11406.qmail@web12103.mail.yahoo.com> Already I have sent this to Alan Howes (Colin Buchanan and Partners, UK) and Robert Cowherd (USA) but I thought you might provide me some feedback as well. Earlier I was trying to send information to sustran-discuss list but failed to do so. Just unlucky. Hopefully I would able to send this now. I am looking for information (project experience) about, how the fare deregulation policy works for the bus industry within the developing countries? What are the different fare regulatory systems? How much they are successful to meet the objective? It would be more helpful if some of these references are related to improved quality bus services, what is more commonly known as "Premium bus service" (PBS) for Dhaka City which was initiated in 1997 by The World Bank. According to my knowledge, this PBS is providing better level of services in terms of journey comfort, reliability, safety and security, and schedule time information availability compare to those services provided by regular buses. Of course PBS is charging higher fares (almost 2.5 times higher than those fare by regular buses) but on the other hand, PBS is charging half for majority passengers who would otherwise used an alternative para-transit mode called, Auto-rickshaw. Initially, started by a private company and gradually government owned public transport operator also started these similar services. Later, more private operators have joined to become premium quality bus operator. I am also interested to get any link about the other success/failure project stories from anywhere. I would be doing a Costs and Benefits Analysis for academic reason. So any information on costs would be very much helpful. Thank you. Shamsul ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From T.Rye at napier.ac.uk Sat Mar 20 01:01:50 2004 From: T.Rye at napier.ac.uk (Rye, Tom) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:01:50 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Transport Policy Adviser post in the Balkans Message-ID: <36402DCC1069D411922D00508B5B2CC225F2C2C6@ex-server1.napier.ac.uk> This job may be of interest to subscribers although please note it is only open to citizens of those 25 states that will be members of the EU as of 1.5.04., plus other accession states. Please pass on to anyone else whom you know who may be interested. EU PILLAR OF UN MISSION IN KOSOVO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS (PISG Provisional Institution of Self Government) Job Title: Adviser Transport Policy Plan Contract: International Duty Station: Pristina Duration: Short -term contract (3 months, in the first instance) PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE POSITION The main scope is to support the drafting of a first generation Kosovo Multi Modal and Integrated Traffic and Transport Plan. Deadline: April 15th 2004 Full details available at http://sbe.napier.ac.uk/tpa.pdf From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Tue Mar 23 21:07:26 2004 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Barter, Paul) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:07:26 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: fare deregulation and bus Message-ID: <42F08B8662756D428F2811F53C6A93F59C9EA5@MBXSRV04.stf.nus.edu.sg> Dear Shamsul I am glad you managed to get this question through to sustran-discuss. Did anyone get back to you with help? Sorry for my slow response. Premium Bus services seem to be one of the various attempts to escape from the nasty politics of bus fares, finance and service viability... There have been reports of success with these (at least for a time) in various places - eg Manila's 'Love Buses', Bangkok's airconditioned services, and private minibuses; Jakarta's PATAS services... Not sure about the long term survival of all these however. Maybe someone else out there can chip in with recent news? Have you seen the following? Gwilliam, K.M. (April 2000) Public Transport in the Developing World - Quo Vadis?, Discussion Paper TWU-39, Transport Division, The World Bank. (can be downloaded somewhere in World Bank web site - you will need to search) - this has a useful overview of the issue I seem to remember. For an interesting perspective on the vicious cycles in bus fare politics and a theoretical interpretation (in the wider context of infrastructure regulation) see chapter 4 on Sri Lanka's buses in the new book by Jose Gomez-Ibanez, "Regulating Infrastructure: Monopoly, Contracts, and Discretion'. Also see http://www.sutp.org and various documents there, including the Sustainable Transport: a Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing Cities. I am not sure but there may be something relevant in there. See also http://www.worldbank.org/transport/urbtrans/pubtrans.htm which might have some more World Bank stuff of relevance. I hope this helps a little. 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. > -----Original Message----- > From: Shamsul AMA Hoque [mailto:sam_aminul@yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 16 March 2004 8:35 PM > To: Barter, Paul > Subject: fare deregulation and bus > > > I am looking for information (project experience) about the fare > deregulation policy for the bus industry within the developing > countries. > > Paul > > If you receive this mail, please forward this mail. > > It would be more helpful if some of these references are related to > improved quality bus services, what is more commonly known > as "Premium bus service" (PBS) for Dhaka City which was initiated in > 1997 by The World Bank. > > This PBS is providing better level of services in terms of journey > comfort, reliability, safety and security, and schedule time > information availability compare to those services provided by > regular buses. Of course PBS is charging higher fares (almost 2.5 > times higher than those fare by regular buses) but on the other hand, > PBS is charging half for majority passengers who would otherwise used > an alternative para-transit mode, Auto-rickshaw. Initially started by > a private company and gradually government owned public transport > operator also started these similar services. Later, more private > operators have joined to become premium quality bus operator. > > I am also interested to get any link about the other success/failure > project stories from anywhere. > > Thank you > > Shamsul AMA Hoque > sam_aminul@yahoo.com > > > > From ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr Tue Mar 23 22:57:10 2004 From: ecoplan.adsl at wanadoo.fr (ecoplan.adsl@wanadoo.fr) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:57:10 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Nomination for the WTN 2004 Environment Prize - Ken Livingston and the London road pricing crew Message-ID: <004d01c410de$bd985e00$6501a8c0@home> Dear Friends, I would like to ask your views ? and if you are in agreement an indication of your support for the following initiative I have decided to take advantage of some leverage that I happen to have to nominate Ken Livingston and his road pricing team in London for this year?s prestigious WTN (World Technology Network) 2004 World Technology Award for Environment (see www.wtn.net for details). Moreover, I thought that the whole thing might have even higher impact if any of you who happen to share my views and care to do so might lend your name to this nomination. All it would take could be your agreement that this is maybe not such a bad idea and a quick email indicating that you are willing to join us in this. We already have a dozen or so leading transportation thinkers and practitioners from seven countries thus far, and it would be good to have some of you here as well. If you do agree, please send on a short email either here or to me personally at Eric.Britton@ecoplan.org, sign in with your full title, affiliation, etc. The question comes up, is this a good idea? While many fine sustainability practitioners and thinkers have signed on, two of my most respected friends and colleagues have indicated that they do not agree. Here is my position on that. Is the London scheme original? Well the answer to that is the usual yes and no, and for you here I certainly do not have to spell that out. OK, but is it perfect? No way. But as I see it, it provides an important, concrete, near-by demonstration of a sustainability approach that can be made to work and to which virtually all of our larger cities should be giving their very closest attention. But if there is not clear recognizable example (and that means not at the other end of the globe) and in a recognizable socio-economic-political context, then the message will simply not get through. So hooray for Ken, his crew and their project, warts and all. What we can hope is that this will set in motion a wave of projects that can build on these lessons, and which can have even higher positive impacts. But if we have to wit forever for the perfect project. . . well, forever is a pretty long time Below is a bit of background on the Prize etc. which you may or my not wish to take the time to read. I look forward to your reactions. Eric PS. And with your nomination or comment, it would be interesting if you might list a small handful of cities well known to you where you think they might do well by looking into a road pricing scheme for themselves. If this push of ours gets wide media coverage, it may be just one more bit of pressure where it can help. ====================================================== For more information on the network and the Prize, I would point you to http://www.wtn.net/. Now as it happens, I am one of the small group of people who are in a position to make this nomination. And if that sounds a bit puffed up to you, let me explain why. In fact, in good part (I believe) I was awarded this prize myself just month?s after our June 2001 final events in Stockholm Partnerships for Sustainable Cities(see www.partnerships.stockholm.se) because of all SEVERAL HUNDRED OF US DID TOGETHER to make such a splendid event and network. Unfair really to be honest, since I was singled out for an honor that properly belonged to all involved. What I can say in my defense is that I mentioned in my acceptance speech that this was above all a team effort, and that I considered myself merely an agent of the City of Stockholm team under our energetic colleague Adam Holmstrom and his team, our wonderful international jury, but, above all, all of you the project teams. To give you a better sense of what this is all about, let me quote the WTN citation for the awards: ?The World Technology Awards have been created to honour those individual leaders or, at times, co-equal teams from across the globe who most contribute to the advance of emerging technologies of all sorts for the benefit of business and society. We especially seek to honour those innovators who have done work recently which has the greatest likely future significance and impact over the long-term... and who will likely become or remain "key players" in the technological drama unfolding in coming years. These awards are not necessarily "lifetime achievement" awards, nor are they particularly for individuals whose work of greatest significance was less than recent. These are about those individuals whose work today will, in our opinion, create the greatest "ripple effects" in the future... in both expected and unexpected ways.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040323/d397ee6c/attachment.html From debi at beag.net Wed Mar 24 14:51:18 2004 From: debi at beag.net (Debi Goenka) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:21:18 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Nomination for the WTN 2004 Environment Prize - KenLivingston and the London road pricing crew References: <004d01c410de$bd985e00$6501a8c0@home> Message-ID: <001101c41164$07641da0$5d9944ca@NOTEBOOK> Hi Eric I would be happy to add my name to this nomination. Cheers Debi ----- Original Message ----- From: ecoplan.adsl@wanadoo.fr To: 'Sustran-Discuss@Jca. Ax. Apc. Org' Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:27 PM Subject: [sustran] Nomination for the WTN 2004 Environment Prize - KenLivingston and the London road pricing crew Dear Friends, I would like to ask your views - and if you are in agreement an indication of your support for the following initiative I have decided to take advantage of some leverage that I happen to have to nominate Ken Livingston and his road pricing team in London for this year's prestigious WTN (World Technology Network) 2004 World Technology Award for Environment (see www.wtn.net for details). Moreover, I thought that the whole thing might have even higher impact if any of you who happen to share my views and care to do so might lend your name to this nomination. All it would take could be your agreement that this is maybe not such a bad idea and a quick email indicating that you are willing to join us in this. We already have a dozen or so leading transportation thinkers and practitioners from seven countries thus far, and it would be good to have some of you here as well. If you do agree, please send on a short email either here or to me personally at Eric.Britton@ecoplan.org, sign in with your full title, affiliation, etc. The question comes up, is this a good idea? While many fine sustainability practitioners and thinkers have signed on, two of my most respected friends and colleagues have indicated that they do not agree. Here is my position on that. Is the London scheme original? Well the answer to that is the usual yes and no, and for you here I certainly do not have to spell that out. OK, but is it perfect? No way. But as I see it, it provides an important, concrete, near-by demonstration of a sustainability approach that can be made to work and to which virtually all of our larger cities should be giving their very closest attention. But if there is not clear recognizable example (and that means not at the other end of the globe) and in a recognizable socio-economic-political context, then the message will simply not get through. So hooray for Ken, his crew and their project, warts and all. What we can hope is that this will set in motion a wave of projects that can build on these lessons, and which can have even higher positive impacts. But if we have to wit forever for the perfect project. . . well, forever is a pretty long time Below is a bit of background on the Prize etc. which you may or my not wish to take the time to read. I look forward to your reactions. Eric PS. And with your nomination or comment, it would be interesting if you might list a small handful of cities well known to you where you think they might do well by looking into a road pricing scheme for themselves. If this push of ours gets wide media coverage, it may be just one more bit of pressure where it can help. ====================================================== For more information on the network and the Prize, I would point you to http://www.wtn.net/. Now as it happens, I am one of the small group of people who are in a position to make this nomination. And if that sounds a bit puffed up to you, let me explain why. In fact, in good part (I believe) I was awarded this prize myself just month's after our June 2001 final events in Stockholm Partnerships for Sustainable Cities(see www.partnerships.stockholm.se) because of all SEVERAL HUNDRED OF US DID TOGETHER to make such a splendid event and network. Unfair really to be honest, since I was singled out for an honor that properly belonged to all involved. What I can say in my defense is that I mentioned in my acceptance speech that this was above all a team effort, and that I considered myself merely an agent of the City of Stockholm team under our energetic colleague Adam Holmstrom and his team, our wonderful international jury, but, above all, all of you the project teams. To give you a better sense of what this is all about, let me quote the WTN citation for the awards: "The World Technology Awards have been created to honour those individual leaders or, at times, co-equal teams from across the globe who most contribute to the advance of emerging technologies of all sorts for the benefit of business and society. We especially seek to honour those innovators who have done work recently which has the greatest likely future significance and impact over the long-term... and who will likely become or remain "key players" in the technological drama unfolding in coming years. These awards are not necessarily "lifetime achievement" awards, nor are they particularly for individuals whose work of greatest significance was less than recent. These are about those individuals whose work today will, in our opinion, create the greatest "ripple effects" in the future... in both expected and unexpected ways." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040324/a4cfa4d0/attachment.html From sujit at vsnl.com Thu Mar 25 04:51:48 2004 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:21:48 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Nomination for the WTN 2004 Environment Prize - Ken Livingston and the London road pricing crew In-Reply-To: <004d01c410de$bd985e00$6501a8c0@home> References: <004d01c410de$bd985e00$6501a8c0@home> Message-ID: <6.0.2.0.0.20040325005041.028494b0@mail.vsnl.com> 24 March 2004 Dear Eric, I would be very happy to add my name to the nomination of Ken Livingston for the WTN 2004 - World Technology Award for Environment. I think Ken Livingston's congestion pricing for London is worthy of emulation not only by many cities in Europe but by many many cities in the third world that stand exposed to:- - widespread damage through deadly impact of air pollution on health, - damage and destruction to the fabric of the city by auto vehicles, - destruction of natural and man made heritage by the never ending appetite of roads and parking spaces and - the tendency to substitute the vibrant and unique personality of the city by mono-culture of urban design, devoid of life and spirit. Many cities in India are ripe for initiatives to reign in the personal auto vehicles that are growing at a cancerous pace. We certainly would benefit from any ripple effect the award my generate. -- Sujit Patwardhan Honorary Secretary, PARISAR, Pune, India At 07:27 PM 3/23/2004, you wrote: >Dear Friends, > >I would like to ask your views ? and if you are in agreement an indication >of your support for the following initiative > >I have decided to take advantage of some leverage that I happen to have to >nominate Ken Livingston and his road pricing team in London for this >year?s prestigious WTN (World Technology Network) 2004 World Technology >Award for Environment (see www.wtn.net for details). >Moreover, I thought that the whole thing might have even higher impact if >any of you who happen to share my views and care to do so might lend your >name to this nomination. All it would take could be your agreement that >this is maybe not such a bad idea and a quick email indicating that you >are willing to join us in this. We already have a dozen or so leading >transportation thinkers and practitioners from seven countries thus far, >and it would be good to have some of you here as well. If you do agree, >please send on a short email either here or to me personally at >Eric.Britton@ecoplan.org, sign in with >your full title, affiliation, etc. > >The question comes up, is this a good idea? While many fine >sustainability practitioners and thinkers have signed on, two of my most >respected friends and colleagues have indicated that they do not >agree. Here is my position on that. Is the London scheme original? Well >the answer to that is the usual yes and no, and for you here I certainly >do not have to spell that out. OK, but is it perfect? No way. But as I >see it, it provides an important, concrete, near-by demonstration of a >sustainability approach that can be made to work and to which virtually >all of our larger cities should be giving their very closest >attention. But if there is not clear recognizable example (and that means >not at the other end of the globe) and in a recognizable >socio-economic-political context, then the message will simply not get >through. So hooray for Ken, his crew and their project, warts and all. > >What we can hope is that this will set in motion a wave of projects that >can build on these lessons, and which can have even higher positive >impacts. But if we have to wit forever for the perfect project. . . well, >forever is a pretty long time > >Below is a bit of background on the Prize etc. which you may or my not >wish to take the time to read. > >I look forward to your reactions. > >Eric > >PS. And with your nomination or comment, it would be interesting if you >might list a small handful of cities well known to you where you think >they might do well by looking into a road pricing scheme for >themselves. If this push of ours gets wide media coverage, it may be just >one more bit of pressure where it can help. > >====================================================== >For more information on the network and the Prize, I would point you to >http://www.wtn.net/. Now as it happens, I am one of >the small group of people who are in a position to make this >nomination. And if that sounds a bit puffed up to you, let me explain >why. In fact, in good part (I believe) I was awarded this prize myself >just month?s after our June 2001 final events in Stockholm Partnerships >for Sustainable Cities(see >www.partnerships.stockholm.se) because of >all SEVERAL HUNDRED OF US DID TOGETHER to make such a splendid event and >network. Unfair really to be honest, since I was singled out for an honor >that properly belonged to all involved. What I can say in my defense is >that I mentioned in my acceptance speech that this was above all a team >effort, and that I considered myself merely an agent of the City of >Stockholm team under our energetic colleague Adam Holmstrom and his team, >our wonderful international jury, but, above all, all of you the project teams. > >To give you a better sense of what this is all about, let me quote the WTN >citation for the awards: > >?The World Technology Awards have been created to honour those individual >leaders or, at times, co-equal teams from across the globe who most >contribute to the advance of emerging technologies of all sorts for the >benefit of business and society. We especially seek to honour those >innovators who have done work recently which has the greatest likely >future significance and impact over the long-term... and who will likely >become or remain "key players" in the technological drama unfolding in >coming years. These awards are not necessarily "lifetime achievement" >awards, nor are they particularly for individuals whose work of greatest >significance was less than recent. These are about those individuals whose >work today will, in our opinion, create the greatest "ripple effects" in >the future... in both expected and unexpected ways.? > > > > > Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com From itdpasia at adelphia.net Fri Mar 26 00:51:09 2004 From: itdpasia at adelphia.net (John Ernst) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 08:51:09 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Nomination for the WTN 2004 Environment Prize - Ken Livingston and the London road pricing crew In-Reply-To: <004d01c410de$bd985e00$6501a8c0@home> References: <004d01c410de$bd985e00$6501a8c0@home> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.0.20040325084210.01bd0ec0@pop.abs.adelphia.net> Dear Eric and all, Jakarta is one city that has already been influenced by the road pricing scheme in London. A few weeks ago, Mrs. D.A. Rini, Head of Planning for the Jakarta Transportation Department, looked into the systems in Singapore and London and gave a presentation favoring London's scheme. Jakarta was considering a road pricing system well before London -- and nearly implemented one in the late 1990's. However, the success of the London system has clearly rekindled interest in Jakarta. Best regards, John At 06:57 AM 3/23/2004, Eric Britton wrote: >...PS. And with your nomination or comment, it would be interesting if >you might list a small handful of cities well known to you where you think >they might do well by looking into a road pricing scheme for >themselves. If this push of ours gets wide media coverage, it may be just >one more bit of pressure where it can help. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - John Ernst - Director, Asia Region ITDP - The Institute for Transport and Development Policy Direct Fax +1 (801) 365-5914 Subscribe to ITDP's Sustainable Transport e-update at www.itdp.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From lpeterson at itdp.org Tue Mar 30 08:59:23 2004 From: lpeterson at itdp.org (Lisa Peterson) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:59:23 -0500 Subject: [sustran] sign on: urge better emissions controls in WB handbook In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.0.20040325084210.01bd0ec0@pop.abs.adelphia.net> Message-ID: <000001c415e9$dc5863c0$6901a8c0@Lisa> 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/20040329/2e35bccf/attachment-0001.html