From ericbruun at earthlink.net Fri Oct 1 03:12:24 2004 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:12:24 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Fw: Int'l Sourcebook of Automobile Dependence in Cities Message-ID: <002701c4a71b$d00bb400$a1fc45cf@earthlink.net> FW: Int'l Sourcebook of Automobile Dependence in Cities ------ Forwarded Message From: University Press of Colorado Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:11:27 -0600 To: Subject: Int'l Sourcebook of Automobile Dependence in Cities The University Press of Colorado is pleased to offer the following special price For more information or to place an order, click on the title below or visit us at www.upcolorado.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Price: $125.00 Sale Price: $31.25 Hardcover, 720 pages, 130 color maps, 38 color illustrations An International Sourcebook of Automobile Independence in Cities, 1960-1990 by Jeffrey R. Kenworthy and Felix B. Laube A comprehensive digest of urban data about land use, transportation, and energy use, An International Sourcebook of Automobile Independence in Cities, 1960-1990, provides government agencies, consulting firms, academics, and community and conservation groups with the kind of detailed information they need to improve their planning, teaching, and researching in these fields. The book sets out detailed data on land use, private and public transportation, energy, environment, and economics in forty-six metropolitan areas in the United States, Australia, Canada, Western Europe, and Asia over four decades. Each city represented has its own set of color maps showing the various territorial boundaries and shape of the metropolitan area, the urbanized areas of the region, the freeway system and all the fixed track rail and bus transit systems. Theses maps--together with the detailed data, correlation analyses between city characteristics, and key trends between 1980 and 1990--make the book an essential tool for policy development, presentations, teaching, and further research. The cities covered are: Boston, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Washington (U.S.); Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney (Australia); Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg (Canada); Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, London, Munich, Paris, Stockholm, Vienna, Zurich (Europe); Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo (wealthy Asian cities); Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Seoul, Surabaya (developing Asian cities). ------ End of Forwarded Message -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040930/0f24e7da/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 26903 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040930/0f24e7da/image-0001.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.gif Type: image/gif Size: 49 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040930/0f24e7da/image-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: x.gif Type: image/gif Size: 49 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040930/0f24e7da/x-0001.gif From sujit at vsnl.com Fri Oct 1 04:31:01 2004 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 01:01:01 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: Int'l Sourcebook of Automobile Dependence in Cities In-Reply-To: <002701c4a71b$d00bb400$a1fc45cf@earthlink.net> References: <002701c4a71b$d00bb400$a1fc45cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20041001005704.0337f790@mail.vsnl.com> 30 September 2004 Dear Eric, Hope this is only a problem caused by the jpg/gif image but the title in the visual says: Automobile Dependence in Cities while the large text says "Automobile Independence" Regards, -- Sujit At 11:42 PM 9/30/2004, you wrote: >------ Forwarded Message >From: University Press of Colorado >Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:11:27 -0600 >To: >Subject: Int'l Sourcebook of Automobile Dependence in Cities > >The University Press of Colorado is pleased to offer the following special >price > >For more information or to place an order, click on the title below or >visit us at www.upcolorado.com > > > > > > >Regular Price: $125.00 >Sale Price: $31.25 > > >Hardcover, 720 pages, 130 color maps, 38 color illustrations >An International Sourcebook of Automobile Independence in >Cities, 1960-1990 > > >by Jeffrey R. Kenworthy and Felix B. Laube > >A comprehensive digest of urban data about land use, transportation, and >energy use, An International Sourcebook of Automobile Independence in >Cities, 1960-1990, provides government agencies, consulting firms, >academics, and community and conservation groups with the kind of >detailed information they need to improve their planning, teaching, and >researching in these fields. The book sets out detailed data on land use, >private and public transportation, energy, environment, and economics in >forty-six metropolitan areas in the United States, Australia, Canada, >Western Europe, and Asia over four decades. > > >Each city represented has its own set of color maps showing the various >territorial boundaries and shape of the metropolitan area, the urbanized >areas of the region, the freeway system and all the fixed track rail and >bus transit systems. Theses maps--together with the detailed data, >correlation analyses between city characteristics, and key trends between >1980 and 1990--make the book an essential tool for policy development, >presentations, teaching, and further research. > > >The cities covered are: Boston, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los >Angeles, New York, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, San >Francisco, Washington (U.S.); Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, >Perth, Sydney (Australia); Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, >Vancouver, Winnipeg (Canada); Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, >Hamburg, London, Munich, Paris, Stockholm, Vienna, Zurich (Europe); Hong >Kong, Singapore, Tokyo (wealthy Asian cities); Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala >Lumpur, Manila, Seoul, Surabaya (developing Asian cities). > > >------ End of Forwarded Message > > Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041001/3314717a/attachment.html From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Mon Oct 4 11:14:47 2004 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:14:47 +0800 Subject: [sustran] FW: news on Klang Valley urban transportation authority proposal Message-ID: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A039AF7@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> The Star Online > News Monday October 4, 2004 Urban transport to be centralised BENTONG: The public transportation system in the Klang Valley is set to improve within the next three years with the setting up of the Urban Transportation Authority, Transport Minister Datuk Seri Chan Kong Choy said. "We are in the midst of preparing the legislation - called the Urban Transportation Authority Act - to put everything under one roof," he told reporters after opening the Selangor MCA Youth's "Building Tomorrow Today" seminar here yesterday. "We hope to table the Bill in Parliament next year," he said. Currently, he said various aspects of public transportation, such as project planning, enforcement and implementation, were fragmented among 10 ministries and government departments including the Transport Ministry, Federal Territories Ministry, local councils, Housing and Local Government Ministry and the police. The integration of the public transportation system will involve the merging of several bus and light rail transit companies such as Intrakota, Park May, Putraline and Star-LRT. Once completed, commuters can look forward to a single ticketing system and increased connectivity, Chan said. The authority will also look into various problems such as irregular feeder bus services as well as poor connectivity and the lack of shaded walkways between interchange stations. From et3 at et3.com Wed Oct 6 03:12:56 2004 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:12:56 -0400 Subject: [sustran] FW: >> Dutch Ministry's Shared Spaces Territorial Cohesion edition LIVE! << Message-ID: <20041005181334.0B6DD2C537@mx0.jca.ne.jp> Daryl Oster (c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3@et3.com , www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310 _____ From: Becky Russell [mailto:becky@perfectgroup.nl] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:31 PM To: et3@et3.com Subject: >> Dutch Ministry's Shared Spaces Territorial Cohesion edition LIVE! << Hello Mr. Oster, Just wanted to let you know that the latest edition of Shared Spaces is now online at www.sharedspaces.nl. Shared Spaces is the international online quarterly from the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. This edition focuses on 'Territorial Cohesion' - how spatial and regional considerations can help strengthen overall European policy. As a member of the ECO Industries Organisation we hoped you might find it interesting. I'm also forwarding on the Shared Spaces announcement. We would very much appreciate if you can send this to any colleagues, people, organisations, friends, family, neighbours who might be interested... Kind regards, Becky Russell Press Release October 2004 Dutch Ministry Debates the Importance of European Territorial Cohesion * Secretary General Marjanne Sint explains why Territorial Cohesion is essential to the future coherency of EU policy. * European Commission?s Patrick Salez discusses the need for a spatial dimension in decision making with Jacques Robert, Director of Agence Europ?enne Territoires et Synergies. * Senior Policy Advisor Peter Schmeitz talks about the implications of the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) for future cohesion policy. Spatial planning considerations have not played a great role in European decision-making to date. While the European Union (EU) currently has no official mandate for urban and regional development, and planning ministers have virtually no voice in the policy debate, there is a growing recognition that structural and sectoral policy can have significant impact on national development strategies. This edition of Shared Spaces explores the emerging concept of Territorial Cohesion ? and how capitalising on European territorial characteristics and differences can strengthen the EU. Shared Spaces ? www.sharedspaces.nl - is the English language online quarterly of VROM, the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. Shared Spaces is a forum for exchanging views and ideas on best practices in the policy fields of VROM. Shared Spaces is available from today at www.sharedspaces.nl. Notes for Editors About Shared Spaces Shared Spaces is an online forum for sharing ideas and opinions outside the confines of strict governmental policy. Shared Spaces is an initiative of the Dutch Ministry of the Environment, Housing and Spatial Planning, more commonly known by its Dutch acronym, VROM. Please visit VROM?s English language site and Shared Spaces at: www.vrom.nl/international www.sharedspaces.nl Reciprocal Links and Syndication Shared Spaces is keen to promote further discussion by establishing reciprocal links with like-minded or related web sites. In addition, material prepared for the Shared Spaces quarterly magazine is available for use on other websites and media, subject to initial written approval. Contact For further information please contact: international@minvrom.nl This is a publication from the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) Centrale Directie Communicatie - Rijnstraat 8 - 2515 XP Den Haag Ministerie van VROM Where the rural and urban environment as well as government buildings really matter. Where policies are developed, implemented and enforced. Knowing that in a small country like the Netherlands, it pays to think big. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041005/b47e9149/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1192 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041005/b47e9149/attachment.gif From hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca Fri Oct 8 14:18:30 2004 From: hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca (Chris Bradshaw) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 22:18:30 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: distance based fuel tax technology test References: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A04678B@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> Message-ID: <046301c4acf7$faf3d580$4c9b6395@oemcomputer> [Sorry to resuscitate this stale item, but I am a new participant and didn't start reading messages until tonight.] The situation Singapore is trying to address is the same as all cities. But Singapore has taken it more seriously, and created well-regarded major measures. It is interesting, therefore, to hear they are thinking of a major adjustment. Keeping in that spirit, I would like to ask whether carsharing has come to Singapore yet? I seem to remember some info that it has. Either way, it could provide the solution without the authoritarian measures of quotas and the high-tech costs of road pricing. And unlike the present system, it will reduce parking demand further and will reduce inequitable car distribution across all social classes. Carsharing is a form of car-rental that specializes in trips from 1-12 hours long. It locates cars around at parking spaces and requires users to take out a membership and pay a refundable deposit up front. Rates include gas and all insurance, and billing is done once a month. It is most common in Europe and North America, where it functions as companies or cooperatives, without any government subsidies or other advantages. It is offered in very few "sprawlish" suburbs, preferring the high parking costs, the small household sizes, the strong main-street shopping, and the good transit of older, high-density neighbourhoods. With a strong government sponsorship, it could overcome this limitation and could also complement transit by being used for commuter ridesharing, thus ensuring the cars "followed" members to their places of work each day, so they could be used for work and personal trips there. And this would also take pressure off the transit system to provide for trips between two low-density areas (which either most transit systems ignore or requires high subsidies). The magic of carsharing is that it transfers the fixed costs of car-ownership (including parking between trips) to variable costs. The higher the fixed costs, the higher the resulting variable fees. It therefore has just the effect Paul is promoting: each additional hour-of-use or kilometre-driven is felt in the pocketbook. There is no way the users can "bury" their high fixed ownership costs as "lifestyle" and forget about it (leaving variable costs ridiculously low). So how about it? Chris Bradshaw Ottawa, Canada p.s., I am co-owner/-manager of Vrtucar, Ottawa's Carsharing organization From chuwasg at yahoo.com Fri Oct 8 12:00:04 2004 From: chuwasg at yahoo.com (chuwa) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 20:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: distance based fuel tax technology test In-Reply-To: <046301c4acf7$faf3d580$4c9b6395@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <20041008030004.57701.qmail@web51106.mail.yahoo.com> There are a few car sharing operator in Singapore. NTUC car co-operative has the biggest fleet. total there are 8000 members sharing 300 cars. currently car share is available in 81 car-parks through different service providers. Expected this figure will be up in three years to 600 car parks of HDB housing estate and share between all the service providers. I had sold my car recently and switch to car sharing. However, there is no car share pots close to where I stay. I end up using it only once. For my only tranportation needs, a folding bike combine with MRT is a perfect solution (healthy, effecient). For family outing, Taxi or MRT is fine. CitySpeed CarSharing (2750 members) https://www.cityspeed.com.sg/Speed/index.aspx Honda ICVS Singapore Pte Ltd http://www.hondadiracc.com.sg/ NTUC Income Car Co-Operative (4000 members) http://www.carcoop.com.sg/ WhizzCar (800 member) http://www.whizzcar.com/ Chu Wa Singapore Chris Bradshaw wrote: [Sorry to resuscitate this stale item, but I am a new participant and didn't start reading messages until tonight.] The situation Singapore is trying to address is the same as all cities. But Singapore has taken it more seriously, and created well-regarded major measures. It is interesting, therefore, to hear they are thinking of a major adjustment. Keeping in that spirit, I would like to ask whether carsharing has come to Singapore yet? I seem to remember some info that it has. Either way, it could provide the solution without the authoritarian measures of quotas and the high-tech costs of road pricing. And unlike the present system, it will reduce parking demand further and will reduce inequitable car distribution across all social classes. Carsharing is a form of car-rental that specializes in trips from 1-12 hours long. It locates cars around at parking spaces and requires users to take out a membership and pay a refundable deposit up front. Rates include gas and all insurance, and billing is done once a month. It is most common in Europe and North America, where it functions as companies or cooperatives, without any government subsidies or other advantages. It is offered in very few "sprawlish" suburbs, preferring the high parking costs, the small household sizes, the strong main-street shopping, and the good transit of older, high-density neighbourhoods. With a strong government sponsorship, it could overcome this limitation and could also complement transit by being used for commuter ridesharing, thus ensuring the cars "followed" members to their places of work each day, so they could be used for work and personal trips there. And this would also take pressure off the transit system to provide for trips between two low-density areas (which either most transit systems ignore or requires high subsidies). The magic of carsharing is that it transfers the fixed costs of car-ownership (including parking between trips) to variable costs. The higher the fixed costs, the higher the resulting variable fees. It therefore has just the effect Paul is promoting: each additional hour-of-use or kilometre-driven is felt in the pocketbook. There is no way the users can "bury" their high fixed ownership costs as "lifestyle" and forget about it (leaving variable costs ridiculously low). So how about it? Chris Bradshaw Ottawa, Canada p.s., I am co-owner/-manager of Vrtucar, Ottawa's Carsharing organization -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041007/e8fed3b4/attachment.html From aables at adb.org Sat Oct 9 20:38:55 2004 From: aables at adb.org (aables@adb.org) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 19:38:55 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Asia Vehicle Fleet Database Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, We at the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Secretariat are updating our vehicle fleet database for Asia. We would like to get information on (1) the annual total registered gasoline and diesel vehicles; and (2) the annual total registered 2-stroke and 4-stroke motorcycles (2- and 3-wheelers) in Asia from 1990 onwards. Our present requirements are annual vehicle totals segregated into engine types (gasoline/diesel or 2-stroke/4-stroke), but we will be very grateful if you could provide us with more detailed data (e.g. segregated by type of vehicle - car, UV, bus, truck, trailer). This information will be utilized for the CAI-Asia Oil Industry Dialogue and future research activities. ?The database will be posted on the CAI-Asia website with the sources cited accordingly. If you could provide information on this, please do; otherwise, kindly refer us to the appropriate resource person/ institute by the end of next week (15 Oct 2004). Thank you very much. Sincerely, Cornie Huizenga Head of Secretariat Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank (ADB) +63 2 632?5047 (phone) +63 2 636 2198 (fax) chuizenga@adb.org PO Box 789 0980 Manila (See attached file: MV Reg Asia.xls) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MV Reg Asia.xls Type: application/msexcel Size: 60416 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041009/aebdcf34/ISO-8859-1QMV_Reg_Asia2Exls-0001.bin From A.J.Plumbe at Bradford.ac.uk Mon Oct 11 22:49:39 2004 From: A.J.Plumbe at Bradford.ac.uk (A.J.Plumbe@Bradford.ac.uk) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:49:39 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Asia Vehicle Fleet Database In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1097502579.416a8f736ef97@webmail2.brad.ac.uk> Hello, For Indonesia I think you can get the information via the following website: http://www.bps.go.id/sector/transpor/ Best wishes. Tony Plumbe Quoting aables@adb.org: > > > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > We at the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Secretariat are > updating our vehicle fleet database for Asia. > > We would like to get information on (1) the annual total registered > gasoline and diesel vehicles; and (2) the annual total registered 2-stroke > and 4-stroke motorcycles (2- and 3-wheelers) in Asia from 1990 onwards. > > Our present requirements are annual vehicle totals segregated into engine > types (gasoline/diesel or 2-stroke/4-stroke), but we will be very grateful > if you could provide us with more detailed data (e.g. segregated by type of > vehicle - car, UV, bus, truck, trailer). > > This information will be utilized for the CAI-Asia Oil Industry Dialogue > and future research activities. ?The database will be posted on the > CAI-Asia website with the sources cited accordingly. > > If you could provide information on this, please do; otherwise, kindly > refer us to the appropriate resource person/ institute by the end of next > week (15 Oct 2004). > > Thank you very much. > > Sincerely, > > Cornie Huizenga > Head of Secretariat > Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) > Asian Development Bank (ADB) > +63 2 632?5047 (phone) > +63 2 636 2198 (fax) > chuizenga@adb.org > PO Box 789 > 0980 Manila > (See attached file: MV Reg Asia.xls) A.J.Plumbe (Tony) ------------------------------------------------------------ This mail sent through IMP: http://webmail.brad.ac.uk To report misuse from this email address forward the message and full headers to misuse@bradford.ac.uk ------------------------------------------------------------ From hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca Wed Oct 13 14:27:20 2004 From: hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca (Chris Bradshaw) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:27:20 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: distance based fuel tax technology test References: <20041008030004.57701.qmail@web51106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <03cd01c4b0e5$87aedd80$89c5fea9@oemcomputer> > I had sold my car recently and switch to car sharing. However, there is no car > share pots close to where I stay. I end up using it only once. > For my only tranportation needs, a folding bike combine with MRT is a > perfect solution (healthy, effecient). For family outing, Taxi or MRT is fine. I, too, have been a folding-bike owner, in my case, for over thirty years. The first I had, a 60-pound Raleigh, was used for easier parking at work. When I got my 30-pound Dahon in 1990, I was able to take it to my office, since it is not only smaller when folded, but it stands up when folded. I also started using it on the bus (rather than having to wait until 6-7 years later when _some_ buses _some_ months were outfitted with bike racks on the front), although I avoided taking it on a crowded rush-hour bus. Now that I am a carsharer, I use it to get to cars that are my second choice (my first choice car is only a 2-minute walk away), and then keeping it in the truck during the trip for any mid-speed side-trips. Now that our company is trying our first station wagon (Toyota Matrix), we will see if _two_ folding bikes will fit behind the second seat. Folding bikes are the natural urban bicycle. The smaller wheel is no problem, since the city riding places are all paved. And the curbs are no problem, unless, of course, you believe in riding on sidewalks (Boo!) And, theft of folding bikes is pretty rare, as they are rather unattractive to the people who want a riding "thrill" (although I still usually lock mine up; the other times, I just fold the steering column to the side, figuring that will deter 99% of opportunists). And they can handle packages hanging from the handlebar, since the smaller wheels don't catch the bags (I also have saddlebags, which don't interfere with the folding). Without folding, a bike is a pretty ungainly vehicle that has many of the same drawbacks as cars when not being used, like having to be parked outside. I even find my Dahon the easier bike to walk -- either folding it first (and using the seat to push it on one of its wheels, as I do when I take it into a store which lacks outside parking) or just by pushing it along, also using the seat to control its balance and thus steer the wheel indirectly, thanks to the smaller wheels that are so responsive. If you need to walk a regular bike by holding the handlebars, your ankle will collide with the pedal more times than you will want to experience. Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa From dguruswamy at hotmail.com Fri Oct 22 04:25:45 2004 From: dguruswamy at hotmail.com (dguruswamy@hotmail.com) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:25:45 -0400 Subject: [sustran] (Bangladesh) Urban transports in a terrible mess Message-ID: VOL XI NO 329 REGD NO DA 1589 Sunday, October 17, 2004 Headline News Watch Trade & Finance Editorial World/Asia Metro/Country Corporate/Stock Sports FE Specials FE Education Young World Growth of SMEs Urban Property Monthly Roundup Business Review FE IT Saturday Feature Asia/South Asia Feature National Day of Brunei Darussalam Archive Site Search HOME EDITORIAL Urban transports in a terrible mess Shahiduzzaman Khan 10/17/2004 CITY'S transport system is in a terrible mess. No plan to improve the system seems to be working. The bizarre traffic congestion, bad shape of the roads and their arteries and ever increasing vehicular traffic are making the condition worse day-by-day. With the month of Ramadan now in progress, city's traffic and transportation problems will deepen further due to increasing movement of the commuters on the streets. This will continue up to Eid-ul Fitr. The authorities are trying to address the issue seriously. They said the Rapid Action Force (RAB) will help the law-enforcing agencies to control the traffic and help ease the transportation problems. A city of 10 million people can hardly withstand the enormous necessity of the ever- growing commuters. Since independence, the growth of Dhaka metropolis has been phenomenal. Records show that about 300 years ago, at the beginning of the 18th century, its population was only 900,000. By the time Bangladesh attained its independence in 1971, it had grown to almost two and a half million. Dhaka's urban problems have reached a crisis level. Its poor live in miserable conditions, the affluent as well as the poor breathe polluted air, and traffic congestion and poor infrastructure services are choking the city's economic growth and diminishing the quality of life. A few statistics will illustrate the dimensions of the crisis: Seventy per cent of the city's population are poor, and they have access to only 20 per cent of the land area, fifty six per cent of the city's population live in slums and slum-like conditions, less than 30 per cent of the houses have piped water supply, and less than 20 per cent have access to proper sanitation. About 90 per cent of the men and almost all the women and children suffer from diseases, only 20 per cent of the school-age children of slum dwellers are actually enrolled, and their drop-out rate is 80 per cent, and in slums, about 95 per cent of the men and 60 per cent of the women have no jobs. On the urban transport problems, the deficiencies in the city's systems have affected its economic and social performance. Transport has not been managed properly, it has not been planned or developed to meet the needs of the growing city population. This has impacted negatively on the city's growth. The availability of bus transport services has not increased in a planned manner. Reports say a staggering 900 buses were added to the fleet without any feasibility study. The study is required to examine whether these would fit the existing road conditions. The number of unlicensed rickshaws and baby-taxis has been growing. The city's 2,200 kilometres (km) of roads are not properly maintained, and the 250 km of arterial roads, which are suitable for large-scale bus operations, are congested. Seventy three per cent of the road space is occupied by rickshaws, mostly illegal. Infrastructure facilities are inadequate, and the enforcement of traffic rules and regulations is very weak. The cost of time wasted in traffic congestion was estimated at Tk 1.6 billion (160 crore) in 1992. This figure has been now perhaps doubled, given the growth of traffic volume in the last few years and the resultant increase in time delays. Again, the cost of the time devoted to walking long distances by 60 per cent of the commuters is also very substantial. On top of this, the cost of vehicular pollution due to traffic congestion and fuel adulteration is also very high. Estimates say, air pollution in Dhaka causes some 15,000 premature deaths and several million cases of sickness every year. The Dhaka Urban Transport Project, taken up in 1998 to solve city's terrible transport problems, is in shambles due to unusual delays in preparing project proposals, inefficient management of the Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) and lack of coordination among the implementing agencies. The Tk 11.77-billion project, being funded by the World Bank (WB), has already been revised twice and one of its components was transferred to the Roads and Highways Department (RHO) due to poor performance of the DCC. The fate of another component of the project, East-West Corridor Project EWCP) is also uncertain as the World Bank is refusing to fund it due to delay in preparing the project concept paper. The DCC's Tk 1.0 billion road repair project also came under heavy WB scrutiny. When faulty work plan and appointment of inefficient construction firm for the work were detected, the WB immediately cancelled the work order. It released the fund after the DCC revised the work plan and engaged another firm through floating fresh tender. Another component of the project, Traffic Engineering Department (TED) is yet to see the light of the day. The traffic department was proposed to be under the DCC management from Dhaka Metropolitan Police. Even after four years of the proposal, it could not be implemented. What is needed now is to initiate various coordinated interventions to address these problems. The DUTP requires a coordinated initiative to address two complicated issues. First, the project is intended to improve road and road transport infrastructure, and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it will help to strengthen the management, planning and coordination of the transport system network and related activities. The project is expected to identify the city's future needs also and prepare projects for implementation in next phases. The DUTP heralds the beginning of a new, integrated approach to overall urban sector development in Dhaka. It is, therefore, more important than civil works that the planning and coordination activities initiated under this project are sustained and further strengthened by the agencies concerned namely, the Dhaka Transport Coordination Board (DTCB), DCC, Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipakkya (RAJUK), Bangladesh Road Transports Authority (BRTA), Police and Department of Environment (DoE), which all are supported under the project. The DUTP's success and sustainability largely depend on institution building and sustainability of these institutions. These bodies which will determine the needs of follow-up projects and oversee whether the city grows in a healthy way or chokes with congestion and pollution. The DUTP is only the first of several projects supported by the WB that cater to the urban poor. In Bangladesh, the primary emphasis has been on alleviating rural poverty, which is clearly the right priority. However, cities already account for almost 10 per cent of Bangladesh's poor. In the future urbanisation, the expansion of the urban poor will inevitably outstrip rural growth. Thus, there is a need for increasing attention on the urban poor and to help develop effective ways to alleviate urban poverty, focusing on health, education, job and income creation as well as infrastructure. In order to address the urban transport problems effectively and efficiently, coordination among the implementing agencies is highly important. Reports say most of the departmental heads do not attend the coordination meetings hosted by the DTCB. Such happenings result in delay of the decision-making process. Some of the projects have already suffered a lot. The agencies need to be geared up for proper implementation of the project so that the sprawling city benefits from it in its future planing and progress. More Headline Ramadan and prices of essentials Urban transports in a terrible mess Participatory role of customs administration Institutions to share Nobel prize limelight Prices of essentials are shooting up Stranded Pakistanis Killing of Muslims by Muslims Print this page | Mail this page | Save this page | Make this page my home page About us | Contact us | Editor's panel | Career opportunity Copy right @ financialexpress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041021/9bec9c1e/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041021/9bec9c1e/attachment-0002.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 4274 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041021/9bec9c1e/attachment-0003.bin From aables at adb.org Fri Oct 22 17:41:10 2004 From: aables at adb.org (aables@adb.org) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:41:10 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Asia Vehicle Fleet Database Update Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, As you already know, we at the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Secretariat are updating our vehicle fleet database for Asia. We are interested in getting data on (1) the annual total registered gasoline and diesel vehicles; and (2) the annual total registered 2-stroke and 4-stroke motorcycles (2- and 3-wheelers) in Asia from 1990 onwards. This information will be utilized for the CAI-Asia Oil Industry Dialogue and future research activities. The database will be posted on the CAI-Asia website with the sources cited accordingly. Thank you very much to the people who have already helped us with this endeavor. Attached is the updated version of the database. The totals still need updating and we are generally lacking segregated data. Up to now, only 3 countries (Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka) have annual vehicle statistics according to fuel use. None of the countries listed have data on whether the motorcycles/ tricycles were using 2-stroke or 4-stroke engines. The ones that really need input are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, P.R. China, East Timor, India, Japan, and Thailand. Kindly help us fill the gaps by providing us with information on this and if you could, please refer us to the appropriate resource persons/ institutes by Wednesday, 27 Oct 2004. Thank you. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, Cornie Huizenga Head of Secretariat Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank (ADB) +63 2 632 5047 (phone) +63 2 636 2198 (fax) chuizenga@adb.org PO Box 789 0980 Manila _______________________________________ Aurora Fe (Au) A. Ables Transport Researcher Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) Asian Development Bank (ADB) Phone ++63 2 632 4444 local 70820 Fax ++63 2 636 2381 Email aables@adb.org Website http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041022/275b2fa5/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MV Reg Asia 22 Oct.xls Type: application/x-ms-excel Size: 59904 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041022/275b2fa5/MVRegAsia22Oct-0001.bin From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Oct 23 02:54:13 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:54:13 +0200 Subject: [sustran] First Partnership Call for a New Mobility 20/20 Target Initiative for Your City Message-ID: <00f901c4b860$277dbee0$6501a8c0@jazz> Dear Sustran Friends and Colleagues, After a period of long and careful preparation, replete with the advantage of extensive in-place testing and public reactions to this project as a first stage test case in Toronto in the last week of September, I think we are ready to move ahead in our search for international partners to see if we can now start to put this high intensity remedial approach to work in one or more cities. It would in fact be ideal if we were to be able to set up a small cluster of projects complete with good internal sharing of results and efficient cross-learning mechanisms, so that these pioneering projects could reinforce each other as they move ahead in their own city. We are not talking about one more research project but an active implementation of an integrated skill set in specific places and without further delay in a context that can only be called of high urgency. There is thus a certain impatience in all this, bearing in mind that the problems are out there, huge and howling at our cities every day -- and in the meantime if the smartest thing we can think of is to do more research, well we somehow are less than responsible. It is - and I know that many of you agree with me on this - time to act. We know enough to begin now, and we are smart enough to observe, listen, learn and adjust as we go along. To be quite frank, I am not at all clear on the process that will be best to follow at this point to move ahead on the agenda in concrete ways. We have on the one hand quite a good toolkit and overall master plan, and with the members of this group we have some fine local partners. What is needed at this point is to find some city leaders and support/financing sources willing to back one or several "beta tests" of this new and we think very promising approach. Indeed, it would probably be easier all around if we could find some source of finance and support ready to work with us on this, which would make it much easier for the first city partners to step forward and make their decision to get involved. But who might that be? Your candidates? With this by way of first introduction, this is to invite you to get in touch so that we can have a look together to see how this might be put to work in practical terms in one or more specific contexts. Of course if you wish more background or details on how all this works, this is the right place to turn. The following and the two web sites offer a fair amount of background in support of these ideas, but they are incomplete and in any event it is creative interaction in each specific context which is needed to move this closer to reality. Do no hesitate to get in touch if you have ideas for us and want to get involved. It will be hard work, but quite possibly among the most satisfying challenges you have taken on in your professional life. With all good wishes, Eric Britton The New Mobility Agenda is at http://newmobility.org And Toronto's New Mobility 20/20 Initiative at http://ecoplan.org/toronto The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France T: +331 4326 1323 M: +336 7321 5868 IP Videoconference: 81.57.233.192 F: +331 5301 2896 E: postmaster @ ecoplan.org - Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Reference: First Call for New Mobility 20/20 Target Partnership Initiative for Your City Subject: A phased city-wide collaborative program to achieve a 20% area-wide reduction in traffic and associated public health impacts (CO2, accidents, etc.) in a target period of 20 months Introduction: This note is to put before you a first outline of an innovative public policy initiative still in its early stages of development, but which we believe has real potential in the until now hopelessly unequal struggle to move our cites toward something much closer to sustainable mobility. What is useful about this concept is that it is at once far-reaching, affordable and realistic. No less important, it targets highly ambitious near term efficiency and visible environmental improvements without requiring massive injections of hard earned taxpayer money. It also, with the right kind of preparatory work and support, can offer a very powerful political tool for mayors and city counsels who want to offer a better, safer, cleaner and more affordable city to their electorate. Why you? Why are we contacting you on this today? Well, because we know from past experience that projects such as this require highly qualified, energetic, well placed local partners who know the issues and the trade-offs well and have the technical capacities and networks to tailor and make this approach work in their city. We are looking for such partners in a first handful of cities to move ahead on these ideas. Might that be you? In brief: The 20/20 policy consists of a very large, coordinated complex of time-phased 'carrots and sticks', all of which are geared to making more efficient use of the existing transport infrastructure of the city. In a sophisticated city like Toronto (and surely yours) many of these measures are well known, but not all of them. It is the combination of new measures, new ways of applying and coordinating known ones, and the creation of an overall coordinating framework with strong and extensive public commitment and corresponding technical competence that lies at the heart of this approach. Hmm. At first glance this sounds a bit unlikely, at least for our city ("we are different") but is it. 1. Desirable? Something that seems to you and the voters in your city consider to be desirable? Or is it so far off the political screen as to merit no attention? 2. Realistic? Is it an impossible goal for your city? We would certainly expect that your initial reaction should be at the very least skeptical. But hold on. Are you all that sure? Might it not be a good idea to have at least a closer look? 3. Divisive? Is it a policy that is going to divide your population into two divisive groups and involve many negative, anti-car measures? Well, we think not, but this is certainly something that needs to be kept in mind as you move head in preparing any eventual program in this often conflict-ridden area of public policy and private practice. 4. Costly? Is it going to require major increases in the amount of money available to the sector? The answer is, quite simply: No! Some References: These are of course critical questions, and the purpose of this note is to at least start to address them. To get you going, you can find further general background information on the approach on the New Mobility Agenda site at http://newmobility.org . And for a specific city application (in process), you may wish to have a look at the Toronto New Mobility Initiative at http://ecoplan.org/toronto. But once you have worked your way through these materials certainly the best way to begin to deepen your understanding will be by getting in touch for direct discussions and exchanges. The Four Keys: (1) Clear, understandable, meetable targets. (2) Strong commitment of local leaders from the top, at least to take this through the first Blueprint Go/No-Go phase. (3) A very broad base of public support and participation. (4) A highly committed local implementation partner with the technical virtuosity needed to get the job planned carefully, executed and then consistently fine-tuned, and the open community spirit and orientation needed to get the job done. How to get this done? The answer is: very carefully. The 20/20 program requires strong leadership and communications skills, because behind there must be a broad based public/private/community partnership that will bring together and integrate the active participation of a far broader number and range of groups and interests than traditionally involved in the planning and implementation process. The preparatory and planning process - which we advise should be carried out in an intensive, broad-based 3 month "Blueprint Go/No Go Decision" effort - must be highly inclusive and carried out in an Open Society initiative. It should target to bring into the process not only those groups that traditionally favor environmental initiatives, but also those who have their doubts, including groups and interests who traditionally have opposed anything other than the now suddenly old-mobility process (i.e. and in brief, build and spend your way out of the problem). The Downside: It is our firm belief that if you approach this with the energy and commitment needed, there is no downside. It may turn out that you will elect different objectives and levels of ambition, but who can criticize a city for taking this challenge seriously and spending a relatively small amount of money and time to see if they can get on the right path? Variations: It may be that after the careful Blueprint Implementation plan is completed, a rather different set of targets will emerge. One distinct possibility is that a consensus that 20/20 per se is simply too ambitious for their city. Fair enough. They might propose instead 10/20 or even 5/20. Would that be a problem? We don't think so. Even if "all" the city were to target and achieve would be a 5% reductions over twice as many months, they would still be inching toward what we call "Kyoto Compliance". Indeed, such a performance would be notable and offer great improvements which would mark your city apart form the rest who are simply and passively submitting to what they believe to be their destiny. Please note: We are well aware that in many cities there is a lot already going on to make specific point improvements and if the city is lucky many qualified citizen groups and associations that are getting involved and trying to make their contribution both in terms of steering policy in the direction of being more sustainable, and in terms of specific actions on their part to make this happen. The objective of the New Mobility Initiative is not to get in their way or supplant their efforts in any way, but rather to reinforce them and define a consistent and supportive overall structure within which their energies and projects can be better supported and coordinated. What next? Well that is the purpose of this note to you. We are looking for a few leading organizations, groups and cities that want to have a closer look at this to see how it might be tailored and applied in one or more cities. Efforts are already underway in Toronto, but it is our view that other cities should not wait. We know enough and the problems are grave enough to begin now. The New Mobility 20/20 Target Initiative in Brief 1. Sustainable transportation will, should not wait? The cost of the inefficiencies of today's dysfunctional transportation arrangements in environmental, life quality and economic terms has already outstripped the carrying capacity of many cities and the planet as a while. 2. Probably the most effective way of understanding the full extent of this dysfunctionality is as a broad based 'public health' problem. To get a feel for how this works click "The Doctor's Bill" at http://www.ecoplan.org/toronto/general/health.htm. 3. Your city can, if it decides, make major near term inroads in congestion, pollution and life quality on its streets, without waiting for more international treaties to be signed, new technologies to appear from heaven, or large piles of government funding to build new roads, intersections, metros, LRT or fund costly, deficitory public transportation operations. 4. Sustainable mobility at the level of a city or region - which is what this is all about - can be achieved in far less time than you ever thought through a (a) targeted, (b) aggressive, (c) locally-driven, (d) coordinated, (e) now-oriented pattern-break commitment on the part of local government and all concerned with the transport sector and its extensions and their impact on your city. 5. This is possible, there is a prudent process by which its ambitious aims can be cheeked for consistency and do-ability, and which lends itself, indeed depends on very specific local tailoring and participation. But any eventual remedial action program along these lines that is going to yield results has to be accompanied ("sold") by a clear target and process that the voters and public can understand, want to work toward, and which they are confident will yield visible near-term results. 6. The 20/20 Target Initiative has been set out with this in view. The four essential pillars that make it work are: (a) understandable meetable targets, (b) effective leadership, (c) broad public support and participation, and (d) the technical virtuosity needed to get the job planned carefully, executed and then consistently fine-tuned. 7. Does this imply 20% new money on top of everything in process? No! But it does require rethinking, redeploying and repackaging, and yes, a certain number of new synergistic initiatives as well 8. Is this to suggest that the entire content of the 20/20 program must be new? Not at all. It is recognized that in many cities there are already projects and programs that are moving in this direction, or at least many elements of it. However the contribution of the 20/20 program is that it provides a broader underlying structure, higher visibility and a sense of urgency and support which has thus far been lacking. 9. The planning period to develop a 20/20 program blueprint? We propose an intense 3 months, but with major backing by and commitment of local government and the volunteer sector. Also requires considerable technical expertise on the part of transport planners and energetic entrepreneurship from both public and private sector actors in the city, to allow us to use their expanding toolkit to better understand and provide for the impact on the streets of the many changes that together constitute the New Mobility Agenda for the city. 10. This is not to say that there is no place for long term thinking and action in the New Mobility Agenda, but rather the level of urgency of the problems in most places requires immediate remedial action. Thus, all longer term programs and thrust must be supported by aggressive and broadly supported near term actions, for which the scope is in fact very large. (Which by the way should not do you a great deal of harm if you happen to be mayor or councilman with an election in the wings). We are now discussing a first round of 20/20 projects with local teams in a first handful of cities and concerned organizations world-wide, so why not with you? The New Mobility Agenda is at http://newmobility.org And Toronto's New Mobility 20/20 Initiative at http://ecoplan.org/toronto The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France T: +331 4326 1323 M: +336 7321 5868 IP Videoconference: 81.57.233.192 F: +331 5301 2896 E: postmaster @ ecoplan.org ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041022/dc5efb48/attachment-0001.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Mon Oct 25 18:22:21 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:22:21 +0200 Subject: [sustran] First Partnership Call for New Mobility 20/20 Target Initiative for Your City Message-ID: <00af01c4ba74$23d598b0$6501a8c0@jazz> Friday, October 22, 2004, Paris, France, Europe Reference: First Partnership Call for New Mobility 20/20 Target Initiative for Your City Immediate Objective: To co-organize with you and/or your best local partner candidate a phased city-wide collaborative program to achieve a 20% area-wide reduction in traffic and associated public health impacts (CO2, accidents, etc.) in a target period of 20 months Introduction: This note is to put before you as an invitation to participate in an innovative public policy initiative still in its early stages of development, but which we believe has real potential in the until now hopelessly unequal struggle to move our cites toward something much closer to sustainable mobility. What is useful about this concept is that it is at once far-reaching, affordable and realistic. No less important, it targets highly ambitious near term efficiency and visible environmental improvements without requiring massive injections of hard earned taxpayer money. It also, with the right kind of preparatory work and support, can offer a very powerful political tool for mayors and city counsels who want to offer a better, safer, cleaner and more affordable city to their electorate. Why you? Why are we contacting you on this today? Well, because we know from past international experience that projects such as this require highly qualified, energetic, well placed local partners who know the issues and the trade-offs well and have the technical capacities and networks to tailor and make this approach work in their city. We are looking for such partners in a first handful of cities to move ahead to prove these ideas. Might that be you? In brief: The 20/20 policy consists of a coordinated, quite sizeable complex of time-phased 'carrots and sticks', all of which are geared to making more efficient use of the existing transport infrastructure of the city. In a sophisticated city like Toronto (and surely yours) we have seen that many of these measures are well known, but not all of them. It is the combination of packages of new measures, new ways of applying and coordinating known ones, and the creation of an overall coordinating framework with strong and extensive public commitment and corresponding technical competence that lies at the heart of this approach. Hmm. At first glance this sounds a bit unlikely, at least for our city ("we are different") but is it. 1. Desirable? Something that seems to you and the voters in your city consider to be desirable? Or is it so far off the political screen as to merit no attention? 2. Realistic? Is it an impossible goal for your city? We would certainly expect that your initial reaction should be at the very least skeptical. But hold on. Are you all that sure? Might it not be a good idea to have at least a closer look? 3. Divisive? Is it a policy that is going to divide your population into two divisive groups and involve many negative, anti-car measures? Well, we think not, but this is certainly something that needs to be kept in mind as you move head in preparing any eventual program in this often conflict-ridden area of public policy and private practice. 4. Costly? Is it going to require major increases in the amount of money available to the sector? The answer is, quite simply: No! The Four Keys: (1) Carefully setting clear, understandable, ambitious but safely meetable performance targets. (2) Strong commitment of local leaders from the top -- at least to take this through the first Blueprint Go/No-Go phase. (3) A very broad base of public support and participation. (4) A highly committed local implementation partner with the technical virtuosity needed to get the fine detail planned carefully, executed and then consistently fine-tuned -- and the open community spirit and orientation needed to get the job done. How to get this done? The answer is: very carefully. The 20/20 program requires strong leadership and communications skills, because behind there must be a broad based public/private/community partnership that will bring together and integrate the active participation of a far broader number and range of groups and interests than traditionally involved in the planning and implementation process. The preparatory and planning process - which we advise should be carried out in an intensive, broad-based 3 month "Blueprint Go/No Go Decision" effort - must be highly inclusive and carried out in an Open Society initiative. It should target to bring into the process not only those groups that traditionally favor environmental initiatives, but also those who have their doubts, including groups and interests who traditionally have opposed anything other than the now suddenly old-mobility process (i.e. and in brief: build and spend your way out of the problem). The Downside: It is our firm belief that if you approach this with the care, energy and commitment needed, there is no downside. It may turn out that after your pre-study, you will elect different objectives and levels of ambition. But who can criticize a city for taking this challenge seriously and spending a relatively small amount of money and time to see if they can get on the right path? Variations: It may be that after the careful Blueprint Implementation plan is completed, a rather different set of targets will emerge. One distinct possibility is that a consensus that 20/20 per se is simply too ambitious for your city. Fair enough. The team might end up proposing instead a 10/20 or even 5/20 program. Would that be a problem? We don't think so. Even if "all" the city were to target and achieve would be, say, a 5% reductions over twice as many months, they would still be inching toward what we call "Kyoto Compliance". Indeed, such a performance would be notable and offer great improvements which would mark your city apart from the rest who are simply and passively submitting to what they believe to be their destiny. Please note: We are well aware that in many cities there is a lot already going on to make specific point improvements and if the city is lucky many qualified citizen groups and associations that are getting involved and trying to make their contribution both in terms of steering policy in the direction of being more sustainable, and in terms of specific actions on their part to make this happen. The objective of the New Mobility Initiative is not to get in their way or supplant their efforts in any way, but rather to reinforce them and define a consistent and supportive overall structure within which their energies and projects can be better supported and coordinated. Some References: These are of course critical questions, and the purpose of this note is to at least start to address them. To get you going, you can find further general background information on the approach on the New Mobility Agenda site at http://newmobility.org . And for a specific city application (in process), you may wish to have a look at the Toronto New Mobility Initiative at http://ecoplan.org/toronto. But once you have worked your way through these materials certainly the best way to begin to deepen your understanding will be by getting in touch for direct discussions and exchanges. What next? Well that is the purpose of this note to you. We are looking for a few leading organizations, groups and cities that want to have a closer look at this to see how it might be tailored and applied in one or more cities. Efforts are already underway in Toronto, but it is our view that other cities should not wait. We know enough and the problems are grave enough to begin now. With this by way of first introduction, this is to invite you to get in touch so that we can have a look together to see how this might be put to work in practical terms. Of course if you wish more background or details on how all this works, this is the right place to turn. The two web sites offer a fair amount of information in support of these ideas, but they are incomplete and in any event it is creative interaction in each specific context which is needed to move this closer to reality. With all good wishes, Eric Britton The New Mobility Agenda is at http://newmobility.org And Toronto's New Mobility 20/20 Initiative at http://ecoplan.org/toronto The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France T: +331 4326 1323 M: +336 7321 5868 IP Videoconference: 81.57.233.192 F: +331 5301 2896 E: postmaster @ ecoplan.org - Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. The New Mobility 20/20 Target Initiative in Brief 1. Sustainable transportation will, should not wait? The cost of the inefficiencies of today's dysfunctional transportation arrangements in environmental, life quality and economic terms has already outstripped the carrying capacity of many cities and the planet as a while. 2. Probably the most effective way of understanding the full extent of this dysfunctionality is to view it as a broad based 'public health' problem. To get a feel for how this works click "The Doctor's Bill" at http://www.ecoplan.org/toronto/general/health.htm. 3. Your city can, if it decides to, make significant near term inroads in congestion, pollution and life quality on its streets, without waiting for more international treaties to be signed, new technologies to appear from heaven, or large piles of government funding to build new roads, intersections, metros, LRT or fund costly, deficitory public transportation operations. 4. Sustainable mobility at the level of a city or region - which is what this is all about - can be achieved in far less time than you ever thought through a (a) targeted, (b) aggressive, (c) locally-driven, (d) coordinated, (e) now-oriented pattern-break commitment on the part of local government and all concerned with the transport sector and its extensions and their impact on your city. 5. There is a prudent process by which the program's ambitious aims can be cheeked for consistency and do-ability, and which lends itself, indeed depends on very specific local tailoring and participation. But any eventual remedial action program along these lines that is going to yield results has to be accompanied ("sold") by a clear target and process that the voters and public can understand, want to work toward, and which they are confident will yield visible near-term results. 6. Does this imply 20% new money on top of everything in process? No! But it does require rethinking, redeploying and repackaging. And yes, a certain number of new synergistic initiatives as well, including some which perhaps you have not yet considered. 7. Is this to suggest that the entire content of the 20/20 program must be new? Not at all. It is recognized that in many cities there are already projects and programs that are moving in this direction, or at least many elements of it. However the contribution of the 20/20 program is that it provides a broader underlying structure, higher visibility and a sense of urgency and support which has thus far been lacking. 8. The planning period to develop a 20/20 program blueprint? Well, we propose an intensive focused 3 month effort, but only if there is major backing by and commitment of local government and the volunteer sector. Half-hearted support will just not work. Also requires considerable technical expertise on the part of transport planners and energetic entrepreneurship from both public and private sector actors in the city, to allow us to use their expanding toolkit to better understand and provide for the impact on the streets of the many changes that together constitute the New Mobility Agenda for the city. 9. This is not to say that there is no place for long term thinking and action in the New Mobility Agenda, but rather the level of urgency of the problems in most places requires immediate remedial action. Thus, all longer term programs and thrust must be supported by aggressive and broadly supported near term actions, for which the scope is in fact very large. (Which by the way should not do you a great deal of harm if you happen to be mayor or councilman with an election in the wings). We are now discussing a first round of 20/20 projects with local teams in a first handful of cities and concerned organizations world-wide, so why not with you? The New Mobility Agenda is at http://newmobility.org And Toronto's New Mobility 20/20 Initiative at http://ecoplan.org/toronto The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France T: +331 4326 1323 M: +336 7321 5868 IP Videoconference: 81.57.233.192 F: +331 5301 2896 E: postmaster @ ecoplan.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041025/bd9c3653/attachment-0001.html From litman at vtpi.org Tue Oct 26 14:58:15 2004 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:58:15 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Media Notice: New Studies Evaluate Rail Transit Benefits and Criticisms Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20041025225801.039939f0@mail.highspeedplus.com> MEDIA NOTICE For Immediate Release 26 October 2004 New studies by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute evaluate rail transit benefits and criticisms. ?Rail Transit In America: Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits? evaluates rail transit benefits based on a comprehensive analysis of transportation system performance in 130 U.S. cities. It finds that cities with large, well-established rail systems have: ? Lower per-capita traffic congestion costs. ? Lower per-capita traffic fatalities. ? Lower per capita consumer transportation expenditures. ? Higher per capita transit ridership. ? Higher transit commute mode split. ? Lower transit operating costs per passenger-mile. ? Higher transit service cost recovery. This study found that residents in cities with large, well-established rail transit systems experience about half the per capita traffic congestion delay as people who live in comparable size cities that lack rail. This occurs because residents of rail transit cities drive fewer annual miles and have an effective alternative when traveling on the most congested corridors. Cities with large rail systems have about a third lower per capita traffic fatality rates, resulting in an estimated 250 avoided deaths annually in the U.S. Residents of these cities save approximately $450 annually per capita in transportation costs compared with consumers living in cities that lack rail systems. The study concludes that rail transit service costs are repaid several times over by reduced congestion, road and parking facility costs, reduced traffic accident costs, and consumer cost savings. ?Rail Transit In America? is available at http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf The executive summary is available at http://www.vtpi.org/railbensum.pdf ?Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism? examines claims that rail transit is ineffective at improving transportation system performance, that rail transit investments are not cost effective, and that transit is an outdated form of transportation. It finds that critics often misrepresent issues and use biased and inaccurate analysis. ?Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism? is available at http://www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf ?Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs: Best Practices Guidebook? describes how to accurately evaluate the full impacts (benefits and costs) of a particular transit service or improvement. It identifies various categories of impacts and how to measure them. It discusses how to avoid common errors made in transit evaluation. ?Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs? is available at http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf * * * According to study author Todd Litman, ?Our research indicates that quality public transit provides significant benefits, including congestion reduction, road and parking facility cost savings, consumer cost savings, reduced traffic accidents and basic mobility for non-drivers. It can increase economic productivity, community livability, and property values. Quality transit service is expensive to build, but the costs tend to be more than offset by incremental economic benefits.? ?When critics conclude that rail transit is ineffective and wasteful, the failure is often in their analysis. Either from ignorance or intention, critics fail to use best practices when evaluating transit,? says Litman. * * * 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 THESE ISSUES 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 Tue Oct 26 22:58:36 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:58:36 +0200 Subject: [sustran] FW: Bus lanes & Bus Priority Message-ID: <013e01c4bb63$e75f10a0$6501a8c0@jazz> Thought this might interest some of you. eb From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@tfl.gov.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 3:31 PM To: 'Lawrence Harrell' Lawrence. If seeking modal shift, it is important not to consider bus priority in isolation. Bus lanes, bus responsive traffic signals, bus only turning movements etc. All help but other steps also need to be taken. In London we have: 1. Greater enforcement using cameras and our own TfL-funded police unit (TOCU)within the Met; 2. Integrated bus/police/traffic controllers Centre for handling routine traffic congestion, emergencies and special events. 3. Congestion Charging in the central area; 4. Cashless buses in the central area reducing bus stop dwell times; (Planned to be extended London-wide in 2006); 5. Improved bus frequencies with greater terminus recovery time to enable the return journey to be on time; 6. Simplified flat fare structure (but with a higher am peak fare being introduced in Jan 2005); 7. Simplified and cheaper bus passes with Oyster Smartcard and cheaper single journey Bus Saver tickets purchased off bus in tube stations, shops etc. 8. Better supervision; (Inspectors, Automatic vehicle location etc.) 9. Better bus stops with shelters and solar lighting, bus boarders into the carriageway preferable in order to give tram-like boarding and alighting and allowing the bus to retain its position in the traffic queue - (but we are not doing enough of these); 10. New, low-floor, wheelchair accessible buses with at least 2 door operation for quicker pax flows at bus stops; (4,500 new buses since Ken Livingstone elected Mayor. 3,000 replacements and 1500 added to the fleet). (No bus now allowed to leave the garage if the ramp is not working). 11. Open boarding/alighting on articulated, bendy buses; 12. Free fares for all children up to age 11 (being extend to 16 year olds in Sept 2005); 13. BTEC qualification for drivers and controllers; 14. Higher pay to aid recruitment and retention of drivers; 15. Extensive night bus service to encourage greater reliance on the bus for more journeys, (i.e. the outward evening bus journey is not lost because paxs are unable to return home by bus - so they take their car); 16. New bus routes, new bus stations and new garages; 17. Improving the pedestrian environment encouraging greater bus use; 18. Green travel planning; 19. Allowing rail season ticket holders to use bus, (all Travelcards in London cover all buses even if only valid for one rail zone). 20. New Quality Incentive Contracts that financially reward operators who provide better services (measured by excess waiting time at bus stops) and penalises those who's service is poor. 21. Public awards to staff and bus garages that provide good services. 22. Cleaning of buses in service (litter picking at the terminus). 23. Better staff facilities. Toilets, staff and spouse free travel passes etc. 24. Better pax information: Bus stop specific timetables, new area maps showing all local bus routes posted on bus stops, at rail stations etc. Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London. Windsor House. 42-50 Victoria Street. London. SW1H 0TL. UK Tel: 020 7941 4200 Intl Tel: +44 207 941 4200 -----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Harrell [mailto:bnr.cons@VIRGIN.NET] Sent: 25 October 2004 21:19 To: UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Bus lanes & Bus Prioirty I am involved in a project with a Local Authority to consider the implementation of bus lanes, bus/HOV lanes and bus priority schemes in a U.K. conurbation. I have some basic information concerning Leeds and Birmingham, but I am looking for more detailed information, or perhaps some studies (ideally from the UK). I am particularly interested in the effects on journey times for bus and non-bus users, accidents, pollution etc. Perhaps someone knows of an economic evaluation of such a scheme? Any advice on subduing opposition from the car lobby and local politicians would also be handy. --- From: >From Dr. Lawrence Harrell in Bournemouth, tel +44 (0)1202 299519. Freelance Economist, Demand & Consumer Behaviour Analyst http://www.demandanalysis.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041026/4aec206f/attachment-0001.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Oct 26 22:59:05 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:59:05 +0200 Subject: [sustran] FW: Bus lanes & Bus Priority Message-ID: <014301c4bb63$f80685f0$6501a8c0@jazz> Thought this might interest some of you. eb From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:Davewetzel@tfl.gov.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 3:31 PM To: 'Lawrence Harrell' Lawrence. If seeking modal shift, it is important not to consider bus priority in isolation. Bus lanes, bus responsive traffic signals, bus only turning movements etc. All help but other steps also need to be taken. In London we have: 1. Greater enforcement using cameras and our own TfL-funded police unit (TOCU)within the Met; 2. Integrated bus/police/traffic controllers Centre for handling routine traffic congestion, emergencies and special events. 3. Congestion Charging in the central area; 4. Cashless buses in the central area reducing bus stop dwell times; (Planned to be extended London-wide in 2006); 5. Improved bus frequencies with greater terminus recovery time to enable the return journey to be on time; 6. Simplified flat fare structure (but with a higher am peak fare being introduced in Jan 2005); 7. Simplified and cheaper bus passes with Oyster Smartcard and cheaper single journey Bus Saver tickets purchased off bus in tube stations, shops etc. 8. Better supervision; (Inspectors, Automatic vehicle location etc.) 9. Better bus stops with shelters and solar lighting, bus boarders into the carriageway preferable in order to give tram-like boarding and alighting and allowing the bus to retain its position in the traffic queue - (but we are not doing enough of these); 10. New, low-floor, wheelchair accessible buses with at least 2 door operation for quicker pax flows at bus stops; (4,500 new buses since Ken Livingstone elected Mayor. 3,000 replacements and 1500 added to the fleet). (No bus now allowed to leave the garage if the ramp is not working). 11. Open boarding/alighting on articulated, bendy buses; 12. Free fares for all children up to age 11 (being extend to 16 year olds in Sept 2005); 13. BTEC qualification for drivers and controllers; 14. Higher pay to aid recruitment and retention of drivers; 15. Extensive night bus service to encourage greater reliance on the bus for more journeys, (i.e. the outward evening bus journey is not lost because paxs are unable to return home by bus - so they take their car); 16. New bus routes, new bus stations and new garages; 17. Improving the pedestrian environment encouraging greater bus use; 18. Green travel planning; 19. Allowing rail season ticket holders to use bus, (all Travelcards in London cover all buses even if only valid for one rail zone). 20. New Quality Incentive Contracts that financially reward operators who provide better services (measured by excess waiting time at bus stops) and penalises those who's service is poor. 21. Public awards to staff and bus garages that provide good services. 22. Cleaning of buses in service (litter picking at the terminus). 23. Better staff facilities. Toilets, staff and spouse free travel passes etc. 24. Better pax information: Bus stop specific timetables, new area maps showing all local bus routes posted on bus stops, at rail stations etc. Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London. Windsor House. 42-50 Victoria Street. London. SW1H 0TL. UK Tel: 020 7941 4200 Intl Tel: +44 207 941 4200 -----Original Message----- From: Lawrence Harrell [mailto:bnr.cons@VIRGIN.NET] Sent: 25 October 2004 21:19 To: UTSG@JISCMAIL.AC.UK Subject: Bus lanes & Bus Prioirty I am involved in a project with a Local Authority to consider the implementation of bus lanes, bus/HOV lanes and bus priority schemes in a U.K. conurbation. I have some basic information concerning Leeds and Birmingham, but I am looking for more detailed information, or perhaps some studies (ideally from the UK). I am particularly interested in the effects on journey times for bus and non-bus users, accidents, pollution etc. Perhaps someone knows of an economic evaluation of such a scheme? Any advice on subduing opposition from the car lobby and local politicians would also be handy. --- From: >From Dr. Lawrence Harrell in Bournemouth, tel +44 (0)1202 299519. Freelance Economist, Demand & Consumer Behaviour Analyst http://www.demandanalysis.co.uk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041026/cc38536d/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Oct 26 23:30:06 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:30:06 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Pune Traffic and Transportation Forum - Partnership Call to lay the base for a New Mobility 20/20 Target Initiative for your city Message-ID: <016701c4bb68$4c7bc830$6501a8c0@jazz> -----Original Message----- From: VijayLele [mailto:vlele@vsnl.net] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 12:59 PM To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum] Partnership Call to lay the basefor a New Mobility 20/20 Target Initiative for your city * Dear all, 20/20 sounds very good, right from the name. Pune Traffic and Transportation Forum members, of which I am one, will definitely give this a detailed thought and get back to you. Vijay Lele "EcoPlan, Paris" wrote: . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041026/a263c622/attachment-0001.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed Oct 27 23:03:16 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:03:16 +0200 Subject: [sustran] More on 20/20 How does it work? Message-ID: <010401c4bc2d$b8804220$6501a8c0@jazz> Dear Friends, I hesitate at least slightly before taking your time with this, but we have been contacted by some of our Sustran colleagues asking for a bit more background on how we see this approach working possibly in their city. The following has been hammered out this morning in an attempt to provide at least a first answer to this. And please, if you see any possible merit in this approach at all, it would be splendid if you would take the time needed to have a close look at this and then let us have the benefit of your critical comments and suggestions. And in this we invite you to play rough, since the issues are too important to be minced around. Kindest thanks, Eric Other 20/20 background/thinkpieces available: 1. Introduction: The New Mobility 20/20 Target Initiative in Brief 2. Why "Dysfunctional Transportation" is major public health threat for your city 3. New Mobility 20/20 Target Initiative - Partnership Call for demonstration projects (letter announcing project and a call for international partners) 4. A New Mobility 20/20 Target Initiative for Your City? In Brief 5. Transport and Health: How long do we wait before acting? (Draft for Leeds Seminar on 'Transport and health-joining up agendas' of 15 Nov. Also see: * The New Mobility Agenda is at http://newmobility.org * Toronto's New Mobility 20/20 Initiative at http://ecoplan.org/toronto 20/20. How does it work? A Conceptual Overview What you have here is a quick conceptual outline of what I consider to be some of the main pillars of the New Mobility Agenda 20/20 approach. I have been asked by several people if I could make a stab at putting these high points on a single page so that they could better appreciate how this is intended to work. Obviously one cannot get into any kind of detail without bringing in the specific operational context. That said, the five-stage preparatory and follow-up routine briefly set out here is in fact the proposed means for sorting out these critical details in each case and the intense technical preparations that are needed to make the whole program work. 1. Highlights: 1. 20/20 program to take top priority in transportation policy and expenditures for period o Open Society Initiative with broadest public support and active participation o Explicit targeting and checkable, open reporting on performance o "Packages of measures" o Carrots and sticks (for respectively inefficient users of street space and efficient) o Time phased, with time allowed for adaptation as system morphs toward more sustainable mobility 2. Infrastructure and financial management: o The bottom line here is that the whole system has to be shifted radically to favor space-efficient transport in cities. o No new infrastructure construction under program o Aggressive and innovative management of the existing transportation infrastructure o Zero increase of total transportation and related budgets (environment, public health, etc.) o New infrastructure delineated via 'thousands of pounds of paint", signing, and control mechanisms o No (or few and those very strategic) purchase of vehicles, etc. for taxpayer funded public transport operations 3. New mobility choices o A new climate of experimentation and opening for new shared services o Innovative push for new private and community transport services providers (people and goods) o Tighter integration of IT throughout 4. Implementation: 4 step process, see below for summary 2. Infrastructure Shifts and Management: (Basically the 'sticks') 1. Major and aggressive push to increase road space available to "high efficiency users" (HEU) a. Example: If today in city HOV lanes and the like account for 2% of total infrastructure - the 20/20 approach will increase this by x 10 within 20 months. b. HEUs included not only traditional forms of public transportation but also human powered transport and both new and older forms of shared vehicles (example: carsharing, car pooling, group taxis, organized hitchhiking and the like) 2. This will require aggressive control of abuses, which can be carried out by a combination of harder-hitting enforcement, cost effective monitoring technologies, and more draconian penalties for abuse. 3. Strategic parking programs aimed specifically to reduce end point access in peak periods. 4. Infrastructure and environment monitoring (major push to x10 increases) 5. Open public reporting on the costs and inefficiencies of the system (including open information on pollution levels, accidents, respiratory illnesses due to traffic, road rage and other forms of dangerous uncivic behaviour, associated medical costs, green travel planning, Improving the pedestrian environment, better public information systems and services Including via mobile phones), improved system integration (all purveyors), etc. 6. Road pricing programs, while certainly desirable and appropriate in the longer run, are unlikely to be able to be properly prepared and brought on line within this short implementation horizon. That said they are obvious candidates for next stage enhancement and extension. 7. Note: Any expensive longer term projects will need to be reviewed and possibly revised within the new perspectives opened up by the New Mobility System, which are sure to be very different from the old thinking and priorities. 3. Aggressive Expansion of New Mobility Choices: (More the 'carrots') 1. It will be immediately apparent that if we are to put pressure on inefficient solo-driver cars in the city, we must be able to offer high quality alternatives, including new services that provide something approaching (or improving on) 'car like mobility'. Which is what this pillar is all about. 2. It is understood that the response pattern is based on (a) forceful (b) scale upgrading of all space-efficient suppliers (on the understanding that 'space-efficiency' must correlate with environmental efficiency as well), and that these must be (c) modulated and coordinated so as together to make up the backbone of the city's New Mobility 'Protocol' (as in a medical protocol for treatment). 3. x10 increases in everything that works: Here are some examples of areas/services which the 20/20 program might do well to target x10 increases within the 20 month target period: cycle access and safety, carsharing, car pooling, telework and other teleservices, efficient goods delivery, taxi patronage (including a careful shift to shared taxis, E&H transport, improvement of intermodal, walking/cycling to school, DRT, community bus and minibus services, new private purveyors, unified fare schemes, driver training (all services), support of promising new near term services, a. (When we say x10 here, it is above all symbolic. The actual increase if any will of course need to e the object of careful analysis and preparation. That said, the point we are trying to get across is that promising concepts need far more forceful support than they would 'normally' get within the old mobility paradigm. 4. Main public transport (throughput) improvement via greatly enhanced (x10) and more efficient access to city's road space, better enforcement of priorities, improved passenger interfaces, easier and probably a lot cheaper) fares, careful use of IT, etc. a. Note: "Public transport" as traditionally defined and practiced offers something of a potential trap in this context, since in most places it has habitually been seen as the only alternative to private cars. This is a dangerous and debilitating assumption, which needs to be rethought and remedied if the new high quality, much more demand responsive services that people will need if they are ever to be tempted out of their cars (which they will find ever more stuck in traffic) and still get to work on time, fresh and, why not?, and lower costs than in the old space-inefficient paradigm. 4. Execution: There is no reason why any city and team cannot undertake to plan and execute a terrific 20/20 or similar program on their own. Thus far, the only discussions that we have had - and these are just getting underway now - is with groups that have expressed interest in working is some way with us to get their own city project going. To this end, we summarize here how we see it from the perspective of a project we are working with and supporting from the beginning. But believe us, you can do it on your own. 1. First Step: Locate a well placed city partner willing to collaborate in order to plan, implement and then to evaluate the results of a 20/20 demonstration project in their city and prepare to build on this further as a next step. The city partner must have a high level of local backing because this is, at the end of the day, a project which is as much political as it is technical. (Which is why we call it an Open Society Initiative.) 2. Advance Planning Mission: Which typically will take one or two weeks and provide the financial support needed to bring a two man team to the host city to work with all those concerned locally in order to determine if and how this approach can be tailored to make its best contribution to the host city (and others concerned). 3. Implementation Blueprint Stage: Far the greater part of the work at this critical stage is carried out by the local team, including a wide range of organizations and groups that need to be brought together to make this ambitions program work. To the extent that external assistance or cooperation is needed this will be defined at the time of the Advanced Planning Mission. 4. The 20/20 Pilot Project: The requirement for external support and financing will be defined in the Blueprint Stage, but once again these are above all local action programs and which in addition do not require new infrastructure construction. Moreover, it is to be hoped that a substantial part of the planning and implementation activities are going to be carried out on a volunteer basis. 5. Evaluation and Follow-up: This is the final phase of the program as we see it today, and this in turn will come out of the various preceding stages. Finally, we need to take into consideration that this approach is based on the understanding that a high degree of urgency surrounds the problems, which means that many of the more traditional planning and support routes and routines are not so appropriate in this case. This requires new patterns of behaviour and a higher sense of urgency from most of the established actors, including of course above all for government agencies at all the various concerned levels since they normally have little flexibility of the sort that is so important here. As we say, sustainability is today's problem, not tomorrow's when it will be at least a bit too late. And today is . today! 5. External Finance for pioneering projects: It is our belief that this approach is sufficiently promising and potentially effective and important that for cities in need (in the developing or Accession countries for example) it is worthy of external financing during the intitial stages at least until such time that the model is clearly there for all to see, appreciate and seize it for their own. Clear demonstration of unfamiliar new concepts is very important, as we have seen in many cases in the sector in the past. Among the most recent of these is London's successful experience in pioneering Congestion Charging (incidentally a project which has in the target area obtained result that are on the scale of the 20/20 objectives), which is now there for other cities to see and consider - and believe me they are. That said, we do not propose that you as a city or concerned group wait around for someone to show up to bankroll your project. Indeed as you move ahead to define it and then make your plans and targets more broadly known, the possibilities of support become far more likely. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041027/6a052978/attachment-0001.html From Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk Thu Oct 28 18:56:10 2004 From: Davewetzel at tfl.gov.uk (Wetzel Dave) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:56:10 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Pedestrian Overbridge Message-ID: Andy I'm no expert on pedestrian bridges. Our policy (not just in Central Business Districts) is to install traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings wherever suitable. We are replacing pedestrian bridges (even the one installed in 1986 at Shepherds Bush, designed like an express train - with MY name on!!). Dave Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London. Windsor House. 42-50 Victoria Street. London. SW1H 0TL. UK Tel: 020 7941 4200 Intl Tel: +44 207 941 4200 Windsor House is close to New Scotland Yard. Buses 11, 24, 148 and 211 pass the door. (507 passes close by). Nearest Tube: St. James's Park Underground station. Nearest mainline stations: Waterloo and Victoria (Both a walk or short bus ride). Public cycle parking available outside Windsor House. -----Original Message----- From: tra3hwl@leeds.ac.uk [mailto:tra3hwl@leeds.ac.uk] Sent: 28 October 2004 03:09 To: Wetzel Dave Subject: Pedestrian Overbridge Dear Mr Dave Wetzel: Through reading your email about how to encourage modal shift, I see that only a lot of transport instruments working together can make help. I am assessing a proposed Pedestrian Overbridge in CBD area, I want to ask you whether supplying good road signs is pretty enough to encourage people to use the Overbridge. Best regards and with many thanks Andy *********************************************************************************** The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@tfl.gov.uk. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. *********************************************************************************** From mpotter at gol.com Fri Oct 29 13:46:24 2004 From: mpotter at gol.com (mpotter) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:46:24 +0900 Subject: [sustran] Re: Pedestrian Overbridge In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7CC5642B-2965-11D9-9E1F-000A95A0F0CA@gol.com> If you don't mind the input of an informed consumer of pedestrian bridges, I've made a number of observations, mostly in Japan and Thailand, but more than a few in the US as well. In my experience, these are very successful in at least two sets of circumstances: 1. over water, as an alternative to an unpleasant, high-traffic motor vehicle bridge, particularly when the pedestrian bridges link attractive pedestrian-friendly precincts at either end. I recall one which seemed very popular and pleasant in London across the Thames. The pedestrian bridge connecting the parks in central Fukuoka to the poplular pedestrian friendly nightlife quarter of Nakasu-Kawabata, which includes shade, benches, and nightly saxophone performances, is another example. 2. across streets where there is a pedestrian-friendly precinct at the level of and immediately accessible to the bridge. Minneapolis has a number of these, as does Bangkok and Singapore. These, however, involve highly artificial precincts aimed at street-avoidance are for street avoidance more than for street crossing. 3. across busy streets where there is a pedestrian-friendly precinct not at the level of the bridge, but immediately accessible once one has descended the steps or escalator provided. Kitakyushu (a city of about 1 million 65 km or so from Fukuoka) has a number of examples connecting the main train station to an extensive system of popular shopping arcades. Chicago has an artful (and no doubt expensive) Frank Gehry-designed affair connecting two very popular walkable areas of its new Millennium Park. By contrast, to build an artless affair with steps to climb up and down in order to simply avoid crossing a street and with no other benefits offered is, in my observations, a waste of money. People will go through impressive lengths to avoid using them. Fukuoka has a number of these -- unloved and almost unused, waiting, I suspect, to be torn down some day. The exception to these rules that I've noticed is Bangkok (there must be others), where there are some streets so wide, so unpleasant and dangerous and filled with a seemingly (to the hapless pedestrian) so endless a stream of fast-moving vehicles, that one uses the overbridge (we might say, "pedestrian overpass") only as an act of desperate resignation. My guess is that a similar set of rules might apply to pedestrian tunnels. Mark Potter millennium3 On Oct 28, 2004, at 6:56 PM, Wetzel Dave wrote: > Andy > I'm no expert on pedestrian bridges. > > Our policy (not just in Central Business Districts) is to install > traffic > light controlled pedestrian crossings wherever suitable. We are > replacing > pedestrian bridges (even the one installed in 1986 at Shepherds Bush, > designed like an express train - with MY name on!!). > > > Dave > Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London. > Windsor House. 42-50 Victoria Street. London. SW1H 0TL. UK > Tel: 020 7941 4200 > Intl Tel: +44 207 941 4200 > > Windsor House is close to New Scotland Yard. Buses 11, 24, 148 and 211 > pass the door. (507 passes close by). > Nearest Tube: St. James's Park Underground station. > Nearest mainline stations: Waterloo and Victoria (Both a walk or short > bus ride). > Public cycle parking available outside Windsor House. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: tra3hwl@leeds.ac.uk [mailto:tra3hwl@leeds.ac.uk] > Sent: 28 October 2004 03:09 > To: Wetzel Dave > Subject: Pedestrian Overbridge > > > Dear Mr Dave Wetzel: > > Through reading your email about how to encourage modal shift, I see > that > only a > lot of transport instruments working together can make help. I am > assessing > a > proposed Pedestrian Overbridge in CBD area, I want to ask you whether > supplying > good road signs is pretty enough to encourage people to use the > Overbridge. > > Best regards and with many thanks > > Andy > > > > > *********************************************************************** > ************ > The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential > and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom > they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty > and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of > this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the > intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in > error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying > of this email is strictly prohibited. > > If you have received this email in error please notify > postmaster@tfl.gov.uk. > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for > the presence of computer viruses. > *********************************************************************** > ************ > From townsend at alcor.concordia.ca Fri Oct 29 22:26:53 2004 From: townsend at alcor.concordia.ca (Craig Townsend) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:26:53 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Pedestrian Overbridge In-Reply-To: <7CC5642B-2965-11D9-9E1F-000A95A0F0CA@gol.com> References: <7CC5642B-2965-11D9-9E1F-000A95A0F0CA@gol.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20041029091255.01c9bd70@alcor.concordia.ca> A planner who led in the improvement of transport in Taipei (including the creation of bus lanes) in the 1990s told me a few years ago that a turning point occurred when the Taipei administration resolved to begin demolishing the pedestrian overpasses (which forced pedestrians to suffer an unpleasant and arduous climb) and creating at-grade pedestrian crossings that would make vehicles stop for pedestrians. He felt similarly that Bangkok's overpasses were a problem rather than a solution. I myself feel less negative about the growing network of elevated pedestrian walkways being built to connect Bangkok's elevated BTS train stations to buildings: these would appear to be performing successfully in some ways similar to those cited by Mark. I'm now based in Montreal which has what we claim to be the world's largest underground network of pedestrian walkways. As in some other North American cities with underground or elevated walkways, they provide benefits in protection against the climate, but also create a semi or pseudo public realm which excludes some people and spreads out pedestrian traffic more thinly. There are many issues at stake! Craig Townsend At 12:46 AM 29/10/2004, you wrote: >If you don't mind the input of an informed consumer of pedestrian >bridges, I've made a number of observations, mostly in Japan and >Thailand, but more than a few in the US as well. > >In my experience, these are very successful in at least two sets of >circumstances: From ccordero at amauta.rcp.net.pe Sat Oct 30 00:46:40 2004 From: ccordero at amauta.rcp.net.pe (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Carlos_Cordero_Vel=E1squez?=) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:46:40 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Fw: Radio RioAbierto05 Message-ID: <001901c4bdce$d4da3780$b7b601c8@pentiumiii> RioAbierto Este sabado 30: Max Hern?ndez/Fernando Romero/John Crabtree Sicoan?lisis/Sociolog?a/Internacional Agenda Per?/Regionalizaci?n/Cooperaci?n Internacional RioAbierto Todos los S?bados 10 am. Radio San Borja 91.1 fm. en Internet ir a : www.radiosanborja.com.pe Conducci?n. carlos cordero / alexandro saco -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041029/7ae80104/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Oct 29 20:20:59 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:20:59 +0200 Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Honor Roll - For comment Message-ID: <003601c4bda9$610e0d10$6501a8c0@jazz> This is to invite you to review and comment on this closing section of our working papers being developed in support of the 20/20 New Mobility Target Initiative (latest version available from us at postmaster@ecoplan.org. I hope you enjoy it and look forward to your comments, corrections, additions and suggestions so that we can make this more useful and definitive. Regards, Eric Britton New Mobility Agenda Precursors "If I have seen further [than others] it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." - Isaac Newton, in a storied letter of 1675 to Robert Hooke The more we discuss this approach with knowledgeable colleagues around the world, the more we are hearing that it seems plausible that a city should target something on the order of 20% reductions of peak hour traffic and pollution within a 20 month target period. But in many ways, there is nothing altogether new in this (other than the package). 20/20 and the New Mobility Agenda are part of a long line of sustainability innovation in the transportation sector, where brave and far-sighted innovators have gotten behind a new concept and make it work. The truth, as another Englishman William Blake put it long ago, is that ?God is in the details?. That said, it gives us great pleasure to take this final moment to identity what we regard as some of the most outstanding precursors to the ideas that are presented in these pages. Of course everyone will have their own list, but here is ours. (I am sure that you will have corrections and candidates of your own, and if so please do let us hear from you.) New Mobility Honor Roll 1. Circa 120 A.D., Rome. The Emperor Hadrian purported to say of Rome traffic: ?This luxury of speed destroys its own aim: a pedestrian makes more headway than a hundred conveyances jammed end to end along the twists and turns of the Scared Way.? (That said, he then proceeded to do nothing about it. Sound familiar?) 2. 1958, New York. Demonstrations of neighbors of the Washington Square Park block proposed extension of Fifth Avenue, which would have eliminated this popular park and social oasis. 3. 1961, New York. One of the ringleaders of the 1958 demonstration, Jane Jacobs , publishes the path-breaking The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Vintage Books opening up the discussions of car restraint in cities 4. 1950s-1970s, German, Austrian, Swiss cities hold on to their tramways while the rest of the world ?modernizes? with diesel buses. ROW takes a full generation to learn the lesson. 5. 1950-1960s, Washington D.C. City holds on to its shared taxis, permitting it to offer cheap, frequent friendly transport while others look on and scratch their heads. 6. 1960s, Sweden. F?rdtj?nst (I need a bit of Swedish help on this). Provision of ?car like? transport for elderly and handicapped via community deal with taxi drivers. Now operating daily in virtually all cities in all Nordic countries and spreading. 7. 1965. Amsterdam. Witte Fietsenplan -White Bicycles Community Bike Project established by Luud Schimmelpennink with the city government. The press announced that the project had ?failed? within a year as all the old bikes pretty much disappeared. Failure? Today there are scores of such community bike projects in cities around the world drawing on this path-breaking example. 8. Mid-sixties, Hamburg. City creates a unified fare/pass system for all public carriers. 9. 1968, Groningen, Netherlands. First neighborhood Woonerf The goal of this at first entirely illegal project led by local residents was to claim back the street for cars and create safe space for people, after several mortal accidents involving children and cars. 10. 1969, Copenhagen city engineers decides to attack traffic build-up in his city by using congestion as a traffic control tool. Thus in a number of cases when a specific traffic bottle neck was reported, his decision was to do nothing about it, or to make it worse. In fact, the traffic ?went away? When asked where it went, he responded: ?Traffic is smart. If it can?t move it just does away?. (And he was and is right.) 11. 1965, Curitiba. City launches first round of attempts to integrate transportation, land use and urban development in its first Master Plan, later leading to one of the developing world?s premier model of innovation in the sector. 12. 1970s, USA. HOV (high occupancy vehicle) reserved lanes and roads slowly come into being, with the goals of travel time savings and improved trip reliability of to provide incentives for individuals to change from driving alone to carpooling, vanpooling, or riding the bus. Currently, there are 96 HOV projects on freeways and in separate rights-of-way in 30 metropolitan areas in North America. These account for approximately 2,000 centerline miles of HOV lanes. 13. 1973, Portland, Oregon. Mayor Neil Goldschmidt's administration, following the move of the Oregon Legislature to adopt the US?s first set of land-use planning laws, puts them to work in their city and goes on to become on of US?s outstanding sustainability practitioners, emphasizing mixed use, walkable neighborhood located rail transit. Residents tend to own fewer cars and drive less than in more automobile-oriented communities 14. 1973. Zurich U-Bahn project voted down in referendum. Leading the city to tackle its transportation problems on the surface and in time to create one of the world?s most sustainable transportation system. (See. http://ecoplan.org/politics/general/zurich.htm for details.) 15. 1974, Paris. The massive "Voie Express Rive Gauche" urban highway project of French government abandoned by incoming President Val?ry Giscard d?Estaing under pressure from environment activist led by Rene Dumont. 16. 1974, Amsterdam. First Witkar electric carsharing station (another Schimmelpennink project) opens for business. Project hung on for close to a decade with minimum government support, and by end had more than 4000 users. 17. 1974, USA. TDM -- Transportation-demand management,: "the art of influencing traveler behavior for the purpose of reducing or redistributing travel demand." Concept institutionalized as part of transportation management system requirement and joint planning regulations set by Federal Highway Administration and Urban Mass Transportation Administration 18. 1975, Paris. Carte Orange, monthly transport pass provides unlimited access to all parts of public transport system to pass holders. 19. 1975, Singapore. Area Licensing Scheme (First road pricing scheme.) 20. 1982, Gothenburg, Sweden. First Taxi-80 centralized, computer-based roving fleet dispatching system deployed by Volvo Transportation Systems. Over the decade spread to several dozen cities across mainly Europe where it is today increasingly standard practice. 21. Late 1980s, Germany and Switzerland. After years of small scale projects carsharing begins to emerge as a signification transportation option. 22. 1989, San Francisco. Construction of Embarcadero Freeway of Interstate 480 terminated by public reactions and political pressure after earthquake. Only The Stub was left. 23. 1994, Toledo, Spain. Thursday: Breakthrough Strategies for Transport in Cities". First international call for Car/Free Day experimentation. 24. 1994, Hertfordshire, UK. First small scale Walk to School program meets some small success and by 200 leads to International Walk to School program. This year more than 3 million children walked to school in more than 30 countries during the 2-4 October celebrations. 25. 1995, Lancaster UK. Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice founded: aims to provide validated information about latest developments in sustainable transport policy and practice to enable local authorities, governments, consultancies, NGOs and supra national organizations to speed up policy development and implement new ideas from around the world. 26. 1996, Reykjavik, La Rochelle, and Bath organize first car/free day projects. 27. 1997, UK. Clear Zones program created to reduce pollution and traffic in towns through partnerships between cities, industry, academia and Government. 28. 2000, Bogota. First mega-carfree day project in third world city takes 850,000 cars off the city streets for 13 hours, leads to a major revision in the transportation system, and wins Stockholm Challenge Prize for Environment with The Commons. 29. 2003, London. Congestion Charging Scheme (changes the face of road pricing as a policy tool for transport in cities). Awarded the World Technology Prize for Environment for outstanding achievement in San Francisco celebration on 5 October 2004. Before we leave this behind us, let?s take a moment to reflect on what these couple of dozen brave innovational approaches have in common as we look ahead to ways in which each and all of us can do our bit to advance the New Mobility Agenda and all it stands for: * Relative to most Old Moblity projects, they cost very little money. * Most of them had small beginnings, and only once the principals behind them are proven do they take off. * None of them have any of the ?magic bullet? connotations that many of the larger old mobility projects often conjure up (and use to get support needed to get funded and built). * All are intensely political. Overall, and in conclusion: all of these projects and experiments are moving in a board common direction -- and that is straight toward what we call the New Mobility Agenda: each as one small part of interactive complexes of transportation arrangements that work together to get us out of traffic and out of our cars when they simply no longer make sense, and still get us where we want to go, if anything quicker, fresher, healthier and cheaper than ever. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041029/693261a4/attachment-0001.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Oct 29 20:21:33 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:21:33 +0200 Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Honor Roll - For comment Message-ID: <003b01c4bda9$7585c440$6501a8c0@jazz> This is to invite you to review and comment on this closing section of our working papers being developed in support of the 20/20 New Mobility Target Initiative (latest version available from us at postmaster@ecoplan.org. I hope you enjoy it and look forward to your comments, corrections, additions and suggestions so that we can make this more useful and definitive. Regards, Eric Britton New Mobility Agenda Precursors "If I have seen further [than others] it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." - Isaac Newton, in a storied letter of 1675 to Robert Hooke The more we discuss this approach with knowledgeable colleagues around the world, the more we are hearing that it seems plausible that a city should target something on the order of 20% reductions of peak hour traffic and pollution within a 20 month target period. But in many ways, there is nothing altogether new in this (other than the package). 20/20 and the New Mobility Agenda are part of a long line of sustainability innovation in the transportation sector, where brave and far-sighted innovators have gotten behind a new concept and make it work. The truth, as another Englishman William Blake put it long ago, is that ?God is in the details?. That said, it gives us great pleasure to take this final moment to identity what we regard as some of the most outstanding precursors to the ideas that are presented in these pages. Of course everyone will have their own list, but here is ours. (I am sure that you will have corrections and candidates of your own, and if so please do let us hear from you.) New Mobility Honor Roll 1. Circa 120 A.D., Rome. The Emperor Hadrian purported to say of Rome traffic: ?This luxury of speed destroys its own aim: a pedestrian makes more headway than a hundred conveyances jammed end to end along the twists and turns of the Scared Way.? (That said, he then proceeded to do nothing about it. Sound familiar?) 2. 1958, New York. Demonstrations of neighbors of the Washington Square Park block proposed extension of Fifth Avenue, which would have eliminated this popular park and social oasis. 3. 1961, New York. One of the ringleaders of the 1958 demonstration, Jane Jacobs , publishes the path-breaking The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Vintage Books opening up the discussions of car restraint in cities 4. 1950s-1970s, German, Austrian, Swiss cities hold on to their tramways while the rest of the world ?modernizes? with diesel buses. ROW takes a full generation to learn the lesson. 5. 1950-1960s, Washington D.C. City holds on to its shared taxis, permitting it to offer cheap, frequent friendly transport while others look on and scratch their heads. 6. 1960s, Sweden. F?rdtj?nst (I need a bit of Swedish help on this). Provision of ?car like? transport for elderly and handicapped via community deal with taxi drivers. Now operating daily in virtually all cities in all Nordic countries and spreading. 7. 1965. Amsterdam. Witte Fietsenplan -White Bicycles Community Bike Project established by Luud Schimmelpennink with the city government. The press announced that the project had ?failed? within a year as all the old bikes pretty much disappeared. Failure? Today there are scores of such community bike projects in cities around the world drawing on this path-breaking example. 8. Mid-sixties, Hamburg. City creates a unified fare/pass system for all public carriers. 9. 1968, Groningen, Netherlands. First neighborhood Woonerf The goal of this at first entirely illegal project led by local residents was to claim back the street for cars and create safe space for people, after several mortal accidents involving children and cars. 10. 1969, Copenhagen city engineers decides to attack traffic build-up in his city by using congestion as a traffic control tool. Thus in a number of cases when a specific traffic bottle neck was reported, his decision was to do nothing about it, or to make it worse. In fact, the traffic ?went away? When asked where it went, he responded: ?Traffic is smart. If it can?t move it just does away?. (And he was and is right.) 11. 1965, Curitiba. City launches first round of attempts to integrate transportation, land use and urban development in its first Master Plan, later leading to one of the developing world?s premier model of innovation in the sector. 12. 1970s, USA. HOV (high occupancy vehicle) reserved lanes and roads slowly come into being, with the goals of travel time savings and improved trip reliability of to provide incentives for individuals to change from driving alone to carpooling, vanpooling, or riding the bus. Currently, there are 96 HOV projects on freeways and in separate rights-of-way in 30 metropolitan areas in North America. These account for approximately 2,000 centerline miles of HOV lanes. 13. 1973, Portland, Oregon. Mayor Neil Goldschmidt's administration, following the move of the Oregon Legislature to adopt the US?s first set of land-use planning laws, puts them to work in their city and goes on to become on of US?s outstanding sustainability practitioners, emphasizing mixed use, walkable neighborhood located rail transit. Residents tend to own fewer cars and drive less than in more automobile-oriented communities 14. 1973. Zurich U-Bahn project voted down in referendum. Leading the city to tackle its transportation problems on the surface and in time to create one of the world?s most sustainable transportation system. (See. http://ecoplan.org/politics/general/zurich.htm for details.) 15. 1974, Paris. The massive "Voie Express Rive Gauche" urban highway project of French government abandoned by incoming President Val?ry Giscard d?Estaing under pressure from environment activist led by Rene Dumont. 16. 1974, Amsterdam. First Witkar electric carsharing station (another Schimmelpennink project) opens for business. Project hung on for close to a decade with minimum government support, and by end had more than 4000 users. 17. 1974, USA. TDM -- Transportation-demand management,: "the art of influencing traveler behavior for the purpose of reducing or redistributing travel demand." Concept institutionalized as part of transportation management system requirement and joint planning regulations set by Federal Highway Administration and Urban Mass Transportation Administration 18. 1975, Paris. Carte Orange, monthly transport pass provides unlimited access to all parts of public transport system to pass holders. 19. 1975, Singapore. Area Licensing Scheme (First road pricing scheme.) 20. 1982, Gothenburg, Sweden. First Taxi-80 centralized, computer-based roving fleet dispatching system deployed by Volvo Transportation Systems. Over the decade spread to several dozen cities across mainly Europe where it is today increasingly standard practice. 21. Late 1980s, Germany and Switzerland. After years of small scale projects carsharing begins to emerge as a signification transportation option. 22. 1989, San Francisco. Construction of Embarcadero Freeway of Interstate 480 terminated by public reactions and political pressure after earthquake. Only The Stub was left. 23. 1994, Toledo, Spain. Thursday: Breakthrough Strategies for Transport in Cities". First international call for Car/Free Day experimentation. 24. 1994, Hertfordshire, UK. First small scale Walk to School program meets some small success and by 200 leads to International Walk to School program. This year more than 3 million children walked to school in more than 30 countries during the 2-4 October celebrations. 25. 1995, Lancaster UK. Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice founded: aims to provide validated information about latest developments in sustainable transport policy and practice to enable local authorities, governments, consultancies, NGOs and supra national organizations to speed up policy development and implement new ideas from around the world. 26. 1996, Reykjavik, La Rochelle, and Bath organize first car/free day projects. 27. 1997, UK. Clear Zones program created to reduce pollution and traffic in towns through partnerships between cities, industry, academia and Government. 28. 2000, Bogota. First mega-carfree day project in third world city takes 850,000 cars off the city streets for 13 hours, leads to a major revision in the transportation system, and wins Stockholm Challenge Prize for Environment with The Commons. 29. 2003, London. Congestion Charging Scheme (changes the face of road pricing as a policy tool for transport in cities). Awarded the World Technology Prize for Environment for outstanding achievement in San Francisco celebration on 5 October 2004. Before we leave this behind us, let?s take a moment to reflect on what these couple of dozen brave innovational approaches have in common as we look ahead to ways in which each and all of us can do our bit to advance the New Mobility Agenda and all it stands for: * Relative to most Old Moblity projects, they cost very little money. * Most of them had small beginnings, and only once the principals behind them are proven do they take off. * None of them have any of the ?magic bullet? connotations that many of the larger old mobility projects often conjure up (and use to get support needed to get funded and built). * All are intensely political. Overall, and in conclusion: all of these projects and experiments are moving in a board common direction -- and that is straight toward what we call the New Mobility Agenda: each as one small part of interactive complexes of transportation arrangements that work together to get us out of traffic and out of our cars when they simply no longer make sense, and still get us where we want to go, if anything quicker, fresher, healthier and cheaper than ever. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041029/0bd4d6f6/attachment-0001.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Oct 30 00:26:35 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:26:35 +0200 Subject: [sustran] New Mobility Honor Roll - For comment Message-ID: <004d01c4bdcb$adf2d580$6501a8c0@jazz> This is to invite you to review and comment on this closing section of our working papers being developed in support of the 20/20 New Mobility Target Initiative (latest version available from us at postmaster@ecoplan.org. I hope you enjoy it and look forward to your comments, corrections, additions and suggestions so that we can make this more useful and definitive. Regards, Eric Britton New Mobility Agenda Precursors "If I have seen further [than others] it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." - Isaac Newton, in a storied letter of 1675 to Robert Hooke The more we discuss this approach with knowledgeable colleagues around the world, the more we are hearing that it seems plausible that a city should target something on the order of 20% reductions of peak hour traffic and pollution within a 20 month target period. But in many ways, there is nothing altogether new in this (other than the package). 20/20 and the New Mobility Agenda are part of a long line of sustainability innovation in the transportation sector, where brave and far-sighted innovators have gotten behind a new concept and make it work. The truth, as another Englishman William Blake put it long ago, is that ?God is in the details?. That said, it gives us great pleasure to take this final moment to identity what we regard as some of the most outstanding precursors to the ideas that are presented in these pages. Of course everyone will have their own list, but here is ours. (I am sure that you will have corrections and candidates of your own, and if so please do let us hear from you.) New Mobility Honor Roll 1. Circa 120 A.D., Rome. The Emperor Hadrian purported to say of Rome traffic: ?This luxury of speed destroys its own aim: a pedestrian makes more headway than a hundred conveyances jammed end to end along the twists and turns of the Scared Way.? (That said, he then proceeded to do nothing about it. Sound familiar?) 2. 1958, New York. Demonstrations of neighbors of the Washington Square Park block proposed extension of Fifth Avenue, which would have eliminated this popular park and social oasis. 3. 1961, New York. One of the ringleaders of the 1958 demonstration, Jane Jacobs, publishes the path-breaking The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Vintage Books 1. opening up the discussions of car restraint in cities 4. 1950s-1970s, German, Austrian, Swiss cities hold on to their tramways while the rest of the world ?modernizes? with diesel buses. ROW takes a full generation to learn the lesson. 5. 1950-1960s, Washington D.C. City holds on to its shared taxis, permitting it to offer cheap, frequent friendly transport while others look on and scratch their heads. 6. 1960s, Sweden. F?rdtj?nst (I need a bit of Swedish help on this). Provision of ?car like? transport for elderly and handicapped via community deal with taxi drivers. Now operating daily in virtually all cities in all Nordic countries and spreading. 7. 1965. Amsterdam. Witte Fietsenplan -White Bicycles Community Bike Project 2. established by Luud Schimmelpennink with the city government. The press announced that the project had ?failed? within a year as all the old bikes pretty much disappeared. Failure? Today there are scores of such community bike projects in cities around the world drawing on this path-breaking example. 8. Mid-sixties, Hamburg. City creates a unified fare/pass system for all public carriers. 9. 1968, Groningen, Netherlands. First neighborhood Woonerf 3. The goal of this at first entirely illegal project led by local residents was to claim back the street for cars and create safe space for people, after several mortal accidents involving children and cars. 10. 1969, Copenhagen city engineers decides to attack traffic build-up in his city by using congestion as a traffic control tool. Thus in a number of cases when a specific traffic bottle neck was reported, his decision was to do nothing about it, or to make it worse. In fact, the traffic ?went away? When asked where it went, he responded: ?Traffic is smart. If it can?t move it just does away?. (And he was and is right.) 11. 1965, Curitiba. City launches first round of attempts to integrate transportation, land use and urban development in its first Master Plan, later leading to one of the developing world?s premier model of innovation in the sector. 12. 1970s, USA. HOV (high occupancy vehicle) reserved lanes and roads slowly come into being, with the goals of travel time savings and improved trip reliability of to provide incentives for individuals to change from driving alone to carpooling, vanpooling, or riding the bus. Currently, there are 96 HOV projects on freeways and in separate rights-of-way in 30 metropolitan areas in North America. These account for approximately 2,000 centerline miles of HOV lanes. 13. 1973, Portland, Oregon. Mayor Neil Goldschmidt's administration, following the move of the Oregon Legislature to adopt the US?s first set of land-use planning laws, puts them to work in their city and goes on to become on of US?s outstanding sustainability practitioners, emphasizing mixed use, walkable neighborhood located rail transit. Residents tend to own fewer cars and drive less than in more automobile-oriented communities 14. 1973. Zurich U-Bahn project voted down in referendum. Leading the city to tackle its transportation problems on the surface and in time to create one of the world?s most sustainable transportation system. (See. http://ecoplan.org/politics/general/zurich.htm for details.) 15. 1974, Paris. The massive "Voie Express Rive Gauche" urban highway project of French government abandoned by incoming President Val?ry Giscard d?Estaing under pressure from environment activist led by Rene Dumont. 16. 1974, Amsterdam. First Witkar electric carsharing station (another Schimmelpennink project) opens for business. Project hung on for close to a decade with minimum government support, and by end had more than 4000 users. 17. 1974, USA. TDM -- Transportation-demand management,: "the art of influencing traveler behavior for the purpose of reducing or redistributing travel demand." Concept institutionalized as part of transportation management system requirement and joint planning regulations set by Federal Highway Administration and Urban Mass Transportation Administration 18. 1975, Paris. Carte Orange, monthly transport pass provides unlimited access to all parts of public transport system to pass holders. 19. 1975, Singapore. Area Licensing Scheme (First road pricing scheme.) 20. 1982, Gothenburg, Sweden. First Taxi-80 centralized, computer-based roving fleet dispatching system deployed by Volvo Transportation Systems. Over the decade spread to several dozen cities across mainly Europe where it is today increasingly standard practice. 21. Late 1980s, Germany and Switzerland. After years of small scale projects carsharing begins to emerge as a signification transportation option. 22. 1989, San Francisco. Construction of Embarcadero Freeway of Interstate 480 terminated by public reactions and political pressure after earthquake. Only The Stub was left. 23. 1994, Toledo, Spain. Thursday: Breakthrough Strategies for Transport in Cities". First international call for Car/Free Day experimentation. 24. 1994, Hertfordshire, UK. First small scale Walk to School program meets some small success and by 200 leads to International Walk to School program. This year more than 3 million children walked to school in more than 30 countries during the 2-4 October celebrations. 25. 1995, Lancaster UK. Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice founded: aims to provide validated information about latest developments in sustainable transport policy and practice to enable local authorities, governments, consultancies, NGOs and supra national organizations to speed up policy development and implement new ideas from around the world. 26. 1996, Reykjavik, La Rochelle, and Bath organize first car/free day projects. 27. 1997, UK. Clear Zones program created to reduce pollution and traffic in towns through partnerships between cities, industry, academia and Government. 28. 2000, Bogota. First mega-carfree day project in third world city takes 850,000 cars off the city streets for 13 hours, leads to a major revision in the transportation system, and wins Stockholm Challenge Prize for Environment with The Commons. 29. 2003, London. Congestion Charging Scheme (changes the face of road pricing as a policy tool for transport in cities). Awarded the World Technology Prize for Environment for outstanding achievement in San Francisco celebration on 5 October 2004. Before we leave this behind us, let?s take a moment to reflect on what these couple of dozen brave innovational approaches have in common as we look ahead to ways in which each and all of us can do our bit to advance the New Mobility Agenda and all it stands for: * ? Relative to most Old Moblity projects, they cost very little money. * ? Most of them had small beginnings, and only once the principals behind them are proven do they take off. * ? None of them have any of the ?magic bullet? connotations that many of the larger old mobility projects often conjure up (and use to get support needed to get funded and built). * ? All are intensely political. Overall, and in conclusion: all of these projects and experiments are moving in a board common direction -- and that is straight toward what we call the New Mobility Agenda: each as one small part of interactive complexes of transportation arrangements that work together to get us out of traffic and out of our cars when they simply no longer make sense, and still get us where we want to go, if anything quicker, fresher, healthier and cheaper than ever. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041029/141e8366/attachment-0001.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sun Oct 31 02:53:00 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:53:00 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Sorry for the multiple postings, even if . . . Message-ID: <002001c4bea9$4eeecd80$6501a8c0@jazz> Sorry dear and busy friends for the multiple postings of the last days, even if the New Mobility 20/20 Initiative is without a doubt most important project that we have been involved with in the last thirty years. Technology somehow ran away with that one. For the latest on 20/20 let me just refer you at this point to the New Mobility Agenda site at http://newmobility.org , where you can click "Latest" for details. Our goal: no less than to find and work with a handful of cities in different parts of the world, size, economic levels, etc., to prove the concept that there is indeed something that can be accomplished if we put our heads (and hearts) to it. The latest full statement on this is now available at http://ecoplan.org/wtpp/general/20-20.htm. Between us, I think it is pretty exciting stuff. I very much hope that you will react to us either in private or to the group as a whole. The entire process of group comment and support is critical. Again sorry for the glitch. Eric Britton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041030/b3002041/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sun Oct 31 16:49:46 2004 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:49:46 +0100 Subject: [sustran] One New Mobility 20/20 emergency program that worked and why Message-ID: <000e01c4bf1e$34047d10$6501a8c0@jazz> Taken from latest version of the New Mobility 20/20 Emergency Initiative (see http://newmobility.org for details). Annex D - Epilogue: One 20/20 emergency program that worked and why In 2002 7,242 people died on the roads in France. The country was stuck at the tail-end of EU countries, three times more than the Swedish rate of deaths per million inhabitants and more than twice that of Britain were population and motorization levels are about the same. The causes were well known: speed, a factor in 50% of fatal or serious accidents-almost 60% of cars, 66% of heavy good vehicles and 76% of motorbikes thought to exceed the speed limit-and alcohol, implicated in more than one in three fatal accidents. Failure to wear a seat-belt, moreover, was responsible for 10% of deaths. Then, suddenly and quite unexpectedly, it became a national priority to do something about this and fast. And this a nutshell is what happened. During the highly contended presidential elections of 2002, the candidate Jacques Chirac, who had broken a leg in a car accident in 1978, made road security a priority of his re-election campaign. Starting immediately after his election, he avowed that this was going to be among his highest priorities of his government. Refusing to let things continue go this way, on 14 July the incoming Head of the State showed his determination to make the fight against road violence a "national project for the five year term". He then proceeded to make this happen, and today two years later, the number has dropped to 4,900. President Chirac's initiative has resulted in an unprecedented 20% reduction in road traffic deaths. In our 20/20 perspective, it is useful to see if we can spot what were some of the things that made this work. This achievement is in fact due to a whole web of factors and a large number of actors: * A efficient national media campaign, relaying the president's message, with reports daily and in high and vivid profile portraying reckless drivers' behavior and other news coverage from road safety activists * The French police force has proven to be key to making changes. The Interior Minister has doubled the police force on the roads, focusing on drug- and alcohol-impaired driving and on wearing seat belts. * The installation of a fast growing network of photo radar on the roads, highways and in unmarked police cars has also been instrumental. * Each year, over one million fines are dodged by French motorists with friends within the police force and the bureaucracy. The government has taken steps to stop these interventions, and now no one is being spared, regardless of who they are or who they know (a new situation in which several ministers have now had direct personal experience).. * The law has been made more strict and fines more severe, with a jail sentence of up to seven years against those who cause a fatal crash. People driving under the influence such as drug and alcohol are being sentenced to jail. * Probationary licenses for new drivers, and novice drivers may have their license revoked if they make too many mistakes during their 3 years probation. * Senior drivers over 75 will soon be requested to take a mandatory medical test to keep their driving privileges. * A greatly stepped-up road safety program in schools. But there is more to it than this. What the French government and people have managed to create here is the first stage of an adaptive learning system. Put in other words, it is progressing beyond the traditional passivity and is now beginning to show a capacity for new forms of adaptation and assimilation. The latest sign of this is a recently initiated program aimed at showing drivers how to adapt their driving patterns to achieve greater fuel economy. Early versions of this program failed to gain public support despite government exhortation and efforts. This time around however the public reaction is far more positive (might $50 oil have something to do with it?), and while it is to early and this is perhaps too minor a project to 'prove the principle', we would nonetheless suggest the entire program is proving the point that with the right collection of sticks and carrots - and great political will from all sides - it is possible to modify the behaviour of our transportation systems and all the myriad individual decisions and actions that go into making them what they are. Fair enough and bravo! but what is the point in the present context. The fact is that we are seeing here in this one concrete case what political will and continuous application, including a selling of the program and its objectives to the citizens at large, can do to crack one of the severest cars/people problems of modern society. A more than 20% improvement in a bit more than 20 months. We can do the same. An unexpected honor that helps prove the point: On 14 October of this year the first FIA World Prize for Road Safety, Environment and Mobility was awarded to the President of the French Republic, Jacques Chirac. The citation went on to enumerate the achievements of the program, stressing that " The key is political will and leadership. Above all it shows that road traffic deaths are not inevitable. This is important for France, but it is a lesson that is relevant around the world." (Now just in case it has slipped your mind the FIA is the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, not exactly a group usually associated with curbing the behaviour of motorists. But there you have it. They are one part of the solution.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041031/20cf1b57/attachment.html