From litman at vtpi.org Sat Jan 1 00:26:51 2005 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 07:26:51 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Rules of Responsible Discourse - Are Parking Costs External? In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.0.20041224062806.025c0ea0@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20041231063440.049a7008@mail.highspeedplus.com> Mr. Oster is not observing some basic rules of responsible discourse. 1. He posts a personal message to a list. If he wants to share ideas with me directly, and arrange meetings in Washington DC, he should send an email to me. If he wants to share information with a list, he should only include information of broad interest. 2. He is criticizing my work on multiple lists, the Internet equivalent of gossip, but as far as I can tell he has not sharing my responses to his criticisms with each list, depriving readers of a balanced dialogue. 3. He is criticizing me without having bothered read my publications or learn about the issue. Yesterday morning he insulted my work (calling it "bogus" and biased) and raised a number of specific objections that I pointed out are incorrect, which indicates he has not read my material carefully. For example, he didn't understand the difference between per-vehicle-mile impacts and per-passenger-mile impacts when comparing car and motorcycle parking costs, or why motorcycles really don't usually reduce traffic congestion in North American conditions, or that concerns about transportation diversity, barrier effect and negative impacts of sprawl are not my original ideas but reflect an extensive and growing body of literature. Rather than acknowledging my response, yesterday afternoon he broadcasts another criticism of my analysis, that parking costs are not really external, due to the fact that most people use automobiles and so the costs are ultimately borne by users as a group. His comments reflect a basic misunderstanding of economic theory. These issues are addressed in my report, "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis," in the section on cost categories. So, let me offer my "Economics 101" response to Oster's claim that unpriced vehicle parking not really an external cost because the costs are ultimately borne by users as a group. This claim would be appropriate if we are only concerned with horizontal equity at a group level ("your group is getting more or less of a fair share compared with my group"), but if we are interested in individual level equity ("you are getting more or less of a fair share than others"), then we should be concerned that some people own fewer cars and drive less than others, and so overpay their fair share of parking costs. Since lower income households tend to own fewer cars than higher income households, this is also vertically inequitable (unfair to disadvantaged people). There is another important issue. Economic efficiency requires that prices (what an individual consumer pays for a particular unit of consumption) equal marginal cost (the incremental cost of that consumption). Regardless of whether or not unpriced parking is unfair, it is clearly inefficient, leading to economically excessive automobile ownership and use, which exacerbates various other problems, including traffic congestion, accidents and sprawl. When motorists pay directly rather than indirectly for parking automobile travel typically declines by 15-25%, which means that a significant portion of the transportation problems we face could be addressed simply by pricing parking more efficiently. If the practice of "bundling" parking with other commercial transactions were really fair and efficient there would be no reason to have generous minimum parking requirements in zoning codes, or for local governments to use local taxes to subsidize on- and off-street parking. Unpriced parking is certainly convenient to motorists, and once it becomes a well-established user benefit it is difficult for an individual business to withhold it (for example, to start charging employees or customers for parking), but most economists would agree that it violates the principles of an efficient market. I welcome legitimate questions or information about my analysis that Mr. Oster wants to share. But please refrain from insulting me and my work on Internet lists, and please bother to read and try to understand my materials before criticizing them. Best New Years wishes to all, -Todd Litman At 11:15 PM 12/30/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote: >Todd, > >If you follow your logic far enough you end up at the point proving that >cars are subsidizing trains through the cost of parking. Most parking is >"free" that is it is provided by the business owner to attract business to >their store. The cost of the parking lot is part of the business cost, and >added to the product or services provided - so the one who parks at the >store pays for their parking when they buy the products at the store. There >are many other transportation costs embodied in the cost of products in >addition to the cost of parking. Much of the freight in the US is moved by >ship and rail, and the cost of that shipping is added to the product cost, >and paid by those who park in the parking lots (cars). Therefore cars are >subsidizing rail infrastructure. > > >IMO, the market is mostly fair and impartial, and in the US market trains >were compared with cars long ago; guess what -- the trains lost. You are >correct - the contest was NOT fair - it was biased in favor of trains. The >railroads had much more clout than automotive innovators at the start of the >contest -- railroads had market share AND tremendous political power (they >still do), yet cars won the comparison - and they are winning all over the >world. The situation today is vary similar with innovative transportation >modes - still in experiment and development. It is now the car market that >is peaking, instead of the train and bike market that peaked in the early >1900s. > >I understand why you so vehemently defend your untenable position. You have >selected a good market niche to work - the railroads still have plenty of >money to use to hang on to their still sizable global market! Your efforts >are a stop-gap tool for the railroaders. Lovins has chosen his niche to >work in promoting his hypercar, his work being supported by automobile >interests and government. This is a more defendable position than the one >you are in; as the battle between car and train is essentially over in the >US- the new battle is be between aircraft and car, and new technology like >aPRT and ETT. A better position yet would be with the best innovators. > >In China, cars have not yet won against trains, and it is likely both cars >and trains in China will be beat at the same time there by new tech. The top >transportation engineering university in China was focused on rail tech. >During the last 3 years they have shifted there focus on new transportation >technology as part of the 10th national 5 year plan of China. The central >government of China has mandated that all new investments in the key >national labs must be high-tech, leading edge technology -- not following >technology like steel rail - or cars. China is now leap-frogging into the >lead with fifth generation transport technology development programs at >their top rated transportation university and key national lab. > >The ETT program at SWJTU is being led by Dr. Zhang Yaoping, the first et3 >licensee in China (there are now 9 et3 licenses in China). The Chinese >fully understands the benefits and costs of ETT, as by their invitation we >spent 5 months out of the last two years in China. We were invited to >presented ETT at the highest levels of the scientific and engineering >community of China, and there is wide agreement to the likely benefits and >costs. > >I am glad to learn you are ready and willing to get on with objective >analysis of ETT. I will be at the ATRA annual meeting in DC on the 9th of >January, the first day of TRB. Perhaps we can meet, and I can provide you >with up to date information that is not available on the et3 website. For >information on joining ARTA see the website http://www.advancedtransit.org . > > >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 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] > > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 9:41 AM > > To: et3@et3.com > > Subject: RE: Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Comparing Costs of Modes > > > > > > As I pointed out, and as elaborated in my paper, it is unfair to compare > > > > overall average roadway costs with rail transit costs, since automobile > > > > transportation also requires parking facilities, and because rail transit > > > > is provided only in urban areas where automobile costs are far higher than > > > > average. When compared fairly, based on the total public subsidy required > > > > to provide transportation in a particular situation, public transit is > > > > often cheaper than accommodating additional automobile travel, including > > > > land opportunity costs, roadway costs and parking costs. > > > > > > I suggest that you focus on emphasizing the positive features of your > > > > preferred mode. It is unnecessary to criticize other modes to justify > > > > innovation. The way you criticized rail and people who it is both > > > > inaccurate and misguided (See my paper, "Evaluating Criticism of Rail > > > > Transit". Also note that the "Road Gang", which lobbies for highway > > > > construction has far more resources than rail transit lobbyists.). If > > > > evacuated tube transport is really superior we will be able to demonstrate > > > > that with objective economic analysis rather than insults slung through > > > > cyberspace. > > > > > > > > Best holiday wishes, > > > > -Todd Litman > > > > > > 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 ericbruun at earthlink.net Sat Jan 1 02:04:46 2005 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:04:46 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Ongoing debate from Daryl with Todd References: <20041231041537.809602D9A6@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <00fb01c4ef5a$dc727440$63f945cf@earthlink.net> Daryl First, Mr. Eric Britton, my apologies for perhaps dragging on what may be a tangential conversation, but I don't want Daryl's latest to go unremarked. Daryl, you are quite wrong about the auto winning everywhere. There are quite a few cities in Europe that have substantially higher average incomes and regional GDPs per capita than US cities, that have not had any increase in car use for a decade or more, such as Copenhagen, Zurich and Munich. They all use this rail technology which you are so convinced is obsolete. Even some cities in developing countries have tamed the automobile. As for China, space and energy consumption will force abatement of car use. When cities are as large as Shanghai or Beijing, it seems very doubtful that there will be some new technology that can meet the enormous capacity requirements as well as "obsolete" rapid transit. But where I think you are really wrong is saying that the market works fairly well in the US of A. People without cars are second-class citizens in all but a handful of cities. The "market" certainly does not meet their needs. Nor does it meet the needs of people who don't want to be forced to drive. Where are the options a healthy market would provide? Furthermore, there are serious distortions in fuel pricing, insurance, parking pricing, taxation and so on. For example, people who drive less subsidize the insurance of those who drive more (lower income subsize higher income drivers), petrol taxes are so low that property taxes support road maintenance (low income persons pay for roads when they don't even own cars), parking lots are often far oversized since the property tax system undercharges undeveloped land and overcharges land with buildings on it. The tax system also does not recognize the environmental damage from large parking lots and paving over the whole countryside. And so on. We should all hope that China and other developing countries recognize the folly and impossibility of following in the path of the US, the country with the highest resource consumption rates in the world, sooner rather than later. Your ETT and other concepts may play a supplementary role here and there, but they will not be replacing old-fashioned trains, buses, bicycles, and walking any time soon. Eric Bruun . Eric Bruun s ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daryl Oster" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" ; Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 11:15 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Comparing Costs ofModes Todd, If you follow your logic far enough you end up at the point proving that cars are subsidizing trains through the cost of parking. Most parking is "free" that is it is provided by the business owner to attract business to their store. The cost of the parking lot is part of the business cost, and added to the product or services provided - so the one who parks at the store pays for their parking when they buy the products at the store. There are many other transportation costs embodied in the cost of products in addition to the cost of parking. Much of the freight in the US is moved by ship and rail, and the cost of that shipping is added to the product cost, and paid by those who park in the parking lots (cars). Therefore cars are subsidizing rail infrastructure. IMO, the market is mostly fair and impartial, and in the US market trains were compared with cars long ago; guess what -- the trains lost. You are correct - the contest was NOT fair - it was biased in favor of trains. The railroads had much more clout than automotive innovators at the start of the contest -- railroads had market share AND tremendous political power (they still do), yet cars won the comparison - and they are winning all over the world. The situation today is vary similar with innovative transportation modes - still in experiment and development. It is now the car market that is peaking, instead of the train and bike market that peaked in the early 1900s. I understand why you so vehemently defend your untenable position. You have selected a good market niche to work - the railroads still have plenty of money to use to hang on to their still sizable global market! Your efforts are a stop-gap tool for the railroaders. Lovins has chosen his niche to work in promoting his hypercar, his work being supported by automobile interests and government. This is a more defendable position than the one you are in; as the battle between car and train is essentially over in the US- the new battle is be between aircraft and car, and new technology like aPRT and ETT. A better position yet would be with the best innovators. In China, cars have not yet won against trains, and it is likely both cars and trains in China will be beat at the same time there by new tech. The top transportation engineering university in China was focused on rail tech. During the last 3 years they have shifted there focus on new transportation technology as part of the 10th national 5 year plan of China. The central government of China has mandated that all new investments in the key national labs must be high-tech, leading edge technology -- not following technology like steel rail - or cars. China is now leap-frogging into the lead with fifth generation transport technology development programs at their top rated transportation university and key national lab. The ETT program at SWJTU is being led by Dr. Zhang Yaoping, the first et3 licensee in China (there are now 9 et3 licenses in China). The Chinese fully understands the benefits and costs of ETT, as by their invitation we spent 5 months out of the last two years in China. We were invited to presented ETT at the highest levels of the scientific and engineering community of China, and there is wide agreement to the likely benefits and costs. I am glad to learn you are ready and willing to get on with objective analysis of ETT. I will be at the ATRA annual meeting in DC on the 9th of January, the first day of TRB. Perhaps we can meet, and I can provide you with up to date information that is not available on the et3 website. For information on joining ARTA see the website http://www.advancedtransit.org . 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 9:41 AM > To: et3@et3.com > Subject: RE: Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Comparing Costs of Modes > > > As I pointed out, and as elaborated in my paper, it is unfair to compare > > overall average roadway costs with rail transit costs, since automobile > > transportation also requires parking facilities, and because rail transit > > is provided only in urban areas where automobile costs are far higher than > > average. When compared fairly, based on the total public subsidy required > > to provide transportation in a particular situation, public transit is > > often cheaper than accommodating additional automobile travel, including > > land opportunity costs, roadway costs and parking costs. > > > I suggest that you focus on emphasizing the positive features of your > > preferred mode. It is unnecessary to criticize other modes to justify > > innovation. The way you criticized rail and people who it is both > > inaccurate and misguided (See my paper, "Evaluating Criticism of Rail > > Transit". Also note that the "Road Gang", which lobbies for highway > > construction has far more resources than rail transit lobbyists.). If > > evacuated tube transport is really superior we will be able to demonstrate > > that with objective economic analysis rather than insults slung through > > cyberspace. > > > > Best holiday wishes, > > -Todd Litman > > > > At 11:46 PM 12/23/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote: > > > >Todd, > > > > > >The 50 factor is on a passenger mile basis - the only reasonable way to > > >measure the value of the subsidy. > > > > > >Using your fed expenditure numbers: > > > > > >One third of $104B = $35B; roads account for about 80% of passenger > > >transportation. > > >Rail = $16.7B + $1.2B = $17.9B; rail accounts for 1% of passenger > > >transportation. > > >SO > > >(80%/1%) X (17.9B/35B)= 41 > > > > > >Not quite the 50 factor claimed by Cox; but he makes his case quite clear > > >without any need for me to elaborate further. > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman@vtpi.org] > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 4:39 PM > > > > To: policy@advancedtransit.org; et3@et3.com; Asia and the Pacific > > > > sustainable transport > > > > Subject: Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Comparing Costs of Modes > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel obliged to respond to the claim made below that rail is > subsidized > > > > > > > > 50 times more than roads, out of concern that some people may actually > > > > > > > > believe it. Let me use the U.S. as an example. > > > > > > > > > > > > In 2000, transportation expenditures by federal, state and local > > > > > > > > governments totaled $167 billion in 2000, of which $104 billion was > for > > > > > > > > roads and only $16.7 billion for rail transit, plus about $1.2 billion > of > > > > > > > > Amtrak. By that measure, highways receive about six times as much > subsidy > > > > > > > > as rail. You could argue that two-thirds of roadway expenditures are > from > > > > > > > > motorist user fees, but on the other hand, automobile parking > subsidies > > > > > > > > (costs not borne directly by users) are estimated in FHWA studies to > total > > > > > > > > $200 to $500 billion in current dollars, so combined road and parking > > > > > > > > subsidies are 15 to 40 times greater than rail transit subsidies, > > > > depending > > > > > > > > on assumptions. > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, railroads traditionally pay rent and taxes on their > > > > > > > > rights-of-way, which roads traditionally do not. The economic value of > > > > > > > > roadway land is substantial, approximately equal to roadway > construction > > > > > > > > and maintenance costs. Failing to charge rent or taxes on this land is > a > > > > > > > > substantial, but hidden subsidy of space-intensive modes such as > > > > automobile > > > > > > > > travel. Taking into account this subsidy, highways receive 20 to 50 > times > > > > > > > > more subsidy than rail. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, there is far more travel by road than by rail, so subsidy > per > > > > > > > > passenger-mile is relatively high for rail transit, but to be fair > this > > > > > > > > comparison should be done for a particular travel condition, since > rail > > > > > > > > transit occurs in congested urban conditions where automobile travel > costs > > > > > > > > are far higher than average due to high road and parking facility > costs > > > > > > > > (not to mention other externalities such as air pollution and barrier > > > > > > > > effects to nonmotorists). Expanding urban highways typically costs > $0.25 > > > > to > > > > > > > > $1.00 per additional peak-period vehicle-mile, plus parking subsidies > that > > > > > > > > average $5 to $15 per day. Rail transit subsidies per passenger-mile, > > > > > > > > although substantial, are generally lower than road and parking > subsidies > > > > > > > > under urban-peak conditions. I suspect that you would find the same > > > > pattern > > > > > > > > in other countries. > > > > > > > > > > > > For more discussion see "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis" > > > > > > > > (http://www.vtpi.org/tca) and the "Comparing Transit and Automobile > Costs" > > > > > > > > section of "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs" > > > > > > > > (http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf). > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is generally a mistake to criticize a particular mode as > being > > > > > > > > inefficient or unsustainable. A better approach is to recognize that > > > > nearly > > > > > > > > every mode can play a role in an efficient and sustainable > transportation > > > > > > > > system, including walking, cycling, public transit, inter-city rail, > > > > > > > > highways, and perhaps some new modes yet to be developed. The key is > to > > > > > > > > determine which is most cost effective for a particular situation, > taking > > > > > > > > into account all benefits and costs. I cannot say how Evacuated Tube > > > > > > > > Transport costs compare with other modes because we lack operating > > > > > > > > examples. It would be interesting to perform a comprehensive analysis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best holiday wishes, > > > > > > > > -Todd Litman > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 08:05 PM 12/22/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote: > > > > > > > > >Vittal and Eric, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks for pointing out my lax search method with respect to > > > > Ellatuvalapil > > > > > > > > >Sreedharan, I should have considered that he may not use his first > name. > > > > I > > > > > > > > >now have plenty of references, and concur his expert status is > warranted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Eric, > > > > > > > > >I am glad that you agree that Wendell Cox would be a good balance for > a > > > > well > > > > > > > > >rounded debate. And there is a need for at least a third voice for > > > > > > > > >transportation, a strong voice to represent advanced transportation > > > > > > > > >technology. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >It is clear to many of us that roads are not sustainable, and have > passed > > > > > > > > >the point of diminishing returns; most agree change is needed. Even > if > > > > it > > > > > > > > >could be shown that trains, bicycles, and muscle offer energy and > > > > > > > > >environmental sustainability (there is plenty of evidence to suggest > they > > > > do > > > > > > > > >not), it is proven they are not socially sustainable. In spite of > being > > > > > > > > >subsidized 50 times more than road, trains are still loosing market > share > > > > to > > > > > > > > >cars. Trains once had market share in Japan, Europe, and the US -- > now > > > > > > > > >roads have market share because cars are more sustainable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The millions in lobby and campaign money of rail interests have done > > > > their > > > > > > > > >damage - they have poisoned the opinions of politicians, bureaucrats, > and > > > > > > > > >educators with their: "smoke and mirrors" presentations, outright > lies, > > > > and > > > > > > > > >"free" gifts of dinners, travel, accommodations, and RFP drafting > > > > > > > > >assistance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >To stick ones head in the sand and say: "we must do something, even > if it > > > > is > > > > > > > > >not optimum -- let's go back to what "worked" in the past" is > foolish, > > > > > > > > >especially since there is credible evidence (like ETT, and other > > > > sustainable > > > > > > > > >means) proving there are sustainable alternatives that can be > implemented > > > > > > > > >easier than returning to trains, bikes, and muscle. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You, I and others justify all the air flights, all the bus, train, > and > > > > car > > > > > > > > >travel because we are using the best tools available to disseminate > our > > > > > > > > >ideals. Guess what -- EVERYONE thinks the same way -- our reasons > for > > > > high > > > > > > > > >energy consumption are justified, and most other peoples reasons are > not > > > > > > > > >justified. If all people in the past had followed your example, and > > > > > > > > >instead of implementing prudent innovation, returned to old ways > whenever > > > > > > > > >new ways encountered problems, we would still be in the Stone Age, > the > > > > > > > > >planet would be stripped of trees, and starvation would be the norm. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Just because you have wasted time in the past to chase down > possibilities > > > > > > > > >that turned out to be dead ends -- do not make the mistake of going > down > > > > a > > > > > > > > >proven dead end, without at least fully checking out the most > promising > > > > > > > > >options. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On > > > > Behalf Of > > > > > > > > > > EcoPlan, Paris > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 4:55 AM > > > > > > > > > > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices - Quick > progress > > > > > > > > > > report > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, December 22, 2004, Paris, France, Europe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Sustainable Friends, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In addition to several much appreciated private letters of > cautious > > > > > > > > > > encouragement on this proposed initiative of 21 Dec, I have > received > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > the last day the following two mailings from proponents of > advanced > > > > > > > > > > transportation technologies, in a phrase free standing new systems > > > > based > > > > > > > > > > on ?new surface transport infrastructure?. I would like to > comment > > > > > > > > > > briefly because I believe this is one of the central pillars that > we > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > to deal with one way or another as we make our important decisions > > > > about > > > > > > > > > > the future of the sector. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally I have a great weakness for these proposals and the > > > > engineering > > > > > > > > > > technologies that they bring to the fore. On a number of occasions > > > > during > > > > > > > > > > my career I have carried out pretty extensive international > surveys > > > > > > > > > > looking at the category in general and more specifically things > like > > > > PRT, > > > > > > > > > > GRT, DRT, ITT, ATT, monorails, skycabs by many names, maglev, air > > > > cushion > > > > > > > > > > vehicles, accelerating moving sidewalks, pneumatic tube transport, > and > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > long list goes on. But as my respected colleague and a central > force > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > this movement, Jerry Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Civil > > > > Engineering > > > > > > > > > > and Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington (see > > > > below) > > > > > > > > > > has said on numerous occasions: ?The problem is implementing it." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That?s it and from the horse?s mouth! To whit my regretful > conclusion > > > > as a > > > > > > > > > > hands-on advisor of policy: given the immediate needs of > > > > sustainability > > > > > > > > > > and our societies, we have to put this on the back burner for now > and > > > > > > > > > > concentrate on what we can do with the infrastructure we have. > Sad > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > possibly even narrow conclusion that it may seem. Fortunately > > > > however, > > > > > > > > > > there is a huge amount that we can in fact achieve working within > the > > > > > > > > > > broad envelope of the infrastructure we have in hand, so to my > mind > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > challenge is to get on with that task. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Daryl Oster, an active proponent of ?ETT? and "space travel on > > > > earth", > > > > > > > > > > for his part goes quite a bit further than I do in his criticism > of > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > way in which the Voices people have set out to organize their > > > > initiative: > > > > > > > > > > starting with a rather unjust hit on the qualifications of the > > > > respected > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan to be one of the Voices. I could not > > > > agree > > > > > > > > > > less. The object of any truly creative dialogue, at least as I > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > > it, is to trot out a wide range of views and perspectives, and > indeed > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > would be a major error if we packed the jury in any way. Not only > is > > > > Mr. > > > > > > > > > > Sreedharan a person of real accomplishment in our sector, but also > by > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > way if you Google ?Sreedharan + ?transport OR transportation? you > get > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > less than 2830 call-ups this morning. So we can put that one to > rest, > > > > eh? > > > > > > > > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said Mr. Oster does propose a candidate with international > > > > > > > > > > credentials who might indeed make another interesting apex for a > > > > debate > > > > > > > > > > triangle, Wendell Cox of The Public Purpose > > > > > > > > > > (?To facilitate the > ideal > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > government as the servant of the people by identifying and > > > > implementing > > > > > > > > > > strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher > than > > > > > > > > > > necessary). Fine idea Daryl. I will add him to our short list, > not > > > > least > > > > > > > > > > because of his rigor, persistence, international reach, at times > > > > > > > > > > surprising flexibility -- and the fact that at least half the time > I > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > one do not agree with him. Which of course is the stuff of a good > > > > debate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So there we have it for today. I will let this cook for another > 24 > > > > hours > > > > > > > > > > before dispatching to our contacts there ? so there is still time > for > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > to share both your criticisms, ideas and even encouragement if > there > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > any of that in your end year larder. It?s their party of course, > but > > > > > > > > > > perhaps they will open it up a bit to ensure that it is fully > > > > informed, > > > > > > > > > > lively, varied and creative ? the stuff of a really successful > party. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Salamaat, Shalom, Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric Britton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS. You may want to check out the latest bulletin of the ITDP at > > > > > > > > > > http://www.itdp.org/. Talk about new transportation ideas and on > > > > street > > > > > > > > > > progress. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: Jerry Schneider [mailto:jbs@peak.org] > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:48 PM > > > > > > > > > > To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices team - > For > > > > > > > > > > comment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 09:18 AM 12/21/04 -0800, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >snip ------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a > clear > > > > cut, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century > awareness of > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no > > > > aversion > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding > > > > > > > > > > infrastructure > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I would > like > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to better > > > > management > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >the infrastructure and systems we already have in place. > Moreover, we > > > > > > > > > > tend > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the creative > integration > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > new > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >communications technologies into the overall systemic > infrastructure, > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >that too might be one of the more promising avenues of the > > > > discussions > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >debate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One wonders what "new systems" you might have in mind? You are > welcome > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add my ITT website to your list of promising avenues for > discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jerry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: sustran-discuss- > > > > bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:sustran-discuss- > > > > bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@list.jca.apc.org] > > > > > > > > > > On Behalf Of Daryl Oster > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:46 AM > > > > > > > > > > To: principalvoices@cnn.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable > > > > transport > > > > > > > > > > Cc: policy@advancedtransit.org > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [sustran] principal voices > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Whom It May Concern: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "globally-renowned experts". If this is true, why is it that a > Google > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for > > > > > > > > > > transportation) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > turns up ZERO hits? If you are looking for an expert try the > Google > > > > > > > > > > search: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Jerry Schneider" +transportation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation > Professor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (retired) Jerry Schneider. Dr. Schneider is likely the most > renowned > > > > > > > > > > expert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on leading edge transportation alternatives. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another Google search: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Wendell Cox" +transportation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation > expert. > > > > Why > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil > Sreedharan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited > to 4, > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the > > > > principal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally > recognized > > > > > > > > > > debate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > > > > > > > > > dangerous content by Netsignia Online > , > > > > and is > > > > > > > > > > believed to be clean. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > > > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > > > > believed to be clean. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > believed to be clean. > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sun Jan 2 16:34:30 2005 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:34:30 +0100 Subject: [sustran] "Principal Voices"- Sustainable Transportation as a Third Voice Message-ID: <003001c4f09d$83128fe0$6501a8c0@jazz> ?Principal Voices?- Sustainable Transportation as a Third Voice A proposal ? Principal Voices 2005: The immediate objective of this cooperative sustainability initiative is to see what we can do to create and make heard a much-needed balancing ?Voice? for the transportation component of the potentially important Principal Voices (www.PrincipalVoices.com) project over 2005 though the participation of an ?invisible college? of knowledgeable, independent, world level proponents of sustainable transport in all its many aspects (or New Mobility if you like). By way of quick reminder, here is what the sponsors say about themselves: ?Principal Voices is an international project aimed at provoking discussion on some of the more compelling challenges confronting our world today. Over the next 12 months TIME, FORTUNE and CNN, in association with Shell, will be presenting a series of videos, articles and round-table discussions. Themes covered will include the environment, business innovation, economic development and transport.? ???? ? The Three-Voice Proposal: We are proposing to work with this international forum to articulate the debate in what we believe to be a most appropriate and dynamic manner, and add a Third Voice in the year-long discussions, balancing in our view . . . (1)?? Transportation Voice 1: The long established defining Voice of transportation expertise in design, engineering, construction, operation, finance, etc., that has essentially dominated and defined the transportation systems of the 20th century and still remains the main operational paradigm in most places (and in any event a critical central component of the next generation transportation paradigm that must be able to call in these skills and experience). This Voice is at present most ably represented by Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan one of India's greatest civil engineers, the architect of the supposedly unbuildable Konkan Railway linking Mumbai and Mangalore, and, more recently, designer of the Delhi Metro system (See http://www.principalvoices.com/voices/elattuvalapil-sreedharan-bio.html for more) (2)?? Second Voice 2? No conversation concerning the future of the transportation sector would be complete without the vigorous participation of this important second voice. A parallel but in many ways separate but very powerful in its own right financial, institutional, political, and industrial lobby ?Voice?, a good example of whose thinking can be seen with the recent WBCSD?s ?Meeting the Challenges to Sustainability? report (see http://www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/general/wbcsd.htm for report and some context) that has been actively supported by this currently formidable element of the transportation establishment.? (3)?? The Third Voice? These are the growing number of international experts and groups who are working together to open up and define what we call the Sustainable Transportation or New Mobility Agenda. This approach to understanding and deciding about mobility matters is altogether on another plane from the older supply-oriented, specific, circumscribed problem-solving approach that has long been the dominant mode of thinking, policy and investment in the past, a time incidentally when the ?problematique? of transportation was vastly different from that which we face today (See Todd Litman?s recent "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be" at http://www.vtpi.org/future.pdf for a good overview on this).? This new and far broader, more inclusive approach to planning, decision making and even on down to implementation and operation is the next step in a cumulative long run process of intellectual, economic, social, environmental and political evolution. It is, no more no less, the world transport policy and practice paradigm of the 21st century. ? ? It is our view that a lively, open, high profile public dialogue between these three contrasting Voices could be a major accomplishment of the sponsors. And while we have some thoughts as to how the second Voice participation might be organized, this is of course not our domain, though we do offer a few of these in the final section of this brainstorming note below. The Third Voice? What we are proposing here is to put in place a mechanism that will serve to open up the debate and thereby ensure that the many competent people and groups working on this agenda in many parts of the world (including many highly respected NGOs) can make their voices heard. The proposed mechanism for doing this: an interactive process mediated by the web and several other low cost, widely available SOA conferencing and dialogue technologies. The Third Voice List in Process: Here?s the latest cut of our wide open working list for your comment and suggestions - see below for further background and suggestions concerning the further development of this important list.? (Incidentally if you wish to know more about any of them until full profiles become available along with their approval in each case, a visit to Google will serve you well in almost all cases.) ? Who are these people? No more no less than the hundred-plus individuals and independent committed groups who in my experience and in the views of my respected international colleagues of long date are among the leading proponents of the kind of transportation that is the most important of all for out planet and our times: sustainable transportation.? If I had to turn the leading edge of transportation policy and decision making over to anyone, it would be to these people and their international colleagues, collaborators and networks in turn.?And that of course in parallel with the technical and other proven skills and virtuosity of our first Voice representatives. ? ? *???????? A. Ables, Bangkok, Thailand *???????? Alan AtKisson, Stockholm, Sweden *???????? Ayad Altaai, Baghdad, Iraq *???????? Oscar Aguilar Ju?rez, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico *???????? Paul A. Barter, Sustran, Singapore *???????? Denis Baupin, City of Paris, France *???????? Margaret Bell, UTSG, Leeds, UK *???????? Reinie Biesenbach, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research/ Global Research Alliance (GRA), Pretoria, South Africa *???????? Donald Brackenbush, Los Angeles, CA *???????? Christ Bradshaw, Ottawa, Canada *???????? Eric Bruun, Philadelphia, PA *???????? Enrique Calderon, Barcelona, Spain *???????? Sally Campbell, Eveleigh, Australia *???????? Carl Cederschiold, Former mayor of Stockholm, Sweden *???????? Robert Cervero, Berkeley, CA *???????? Phil Charles, Brisbane, Australia *???????? Robin Chase, Boston, MA *???????? Carlos Cordero Vel?squez, Lima, Peru *???????? Al Cormier, Mississauga, Canada *???????? Wendell Cox, St. Louis, Mo. *???????? Philippe Crist, Saint Germain en Laye, France *???????? Ranjith de Silva, Colombo, Ceylon *???????? Carlos Dora, Rome, Italy *???????? Bernard Fautrier, Monaco *???????? Anwar Fazal, Kuala Lumpur, Maylasia *???????? Maria Josefina Figueroa, Roskilde, Denmark *???????? Duarte de Souza Rosa Filho, Porto Alegre, Brazil *???????? Brendan Finn, Singapore *???????? Priyanthi Fernando, Executive Secretary, International Forum for Rural Transport Development (IFRTD). *???????? Karl Fjellstrom, Surabaya, Indonesia *???????? Rossella Forenza, Potenza, Italy *???????? Jan Gehl, Copenhagen, Denmark *???????? Michael Glotz-Richter, Bremen, Germany *???????? Phil Goodwin, Exeter, UK *???????? Ingibjorg Guolaugsdottir, Reykjavik, Iceland *???????? Peter Hall, Berkeley, USA *???????? Sylvia Harms, Dubendorf, Switzerland *???????? Roger Higman, Friends of the Earth, London, UK *???????? John. Holtzclaw, Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA *???????? Walter Hook, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York *???????? Nguyen Trong Thong, Hanoi, Viet Nam *???????? Ursula Huws, Analytica, UK *???????? Taiichi Inoue, Tokyo, Japan *???????? Virgil Ioanid, Bucarest, Romania *???????? Jane Jacobs, Toronto, Canada *???????? Jiri Jiracek, Prague, Czech Republic *???????? Dave Holladay, Glasgow, Scotland *???????? Per Homann Jespersen, Roskilde, Denmark * Sharif A Kafi, Dhaka, Bangladesh *???????? Richard Katzev, Portland *???????? Isam Kaysi, Beirut *???????? Fred Kent, Partners for Public Spaces, NYC *???????? Jeff Kenworthy, Perth, Australia *???????? Gadi Kfir, Tel Aviv, Israel *???????? Adam Kowalewski, Warsaw, Poland *???????? Charles Kunaka, Harare *???????? Stefan Langeveld, Amsterdam, Netherlands *???????? Agnes Lehuen, Le Vesinet, France *???????? Corinne Lepage, Paris, France *???????? Graham Lightfoot, Scariff, Ireland *???????? Todd Litman, Victoria, Canada *???????? Stefan Lorentzson, Gothenburg. Sweden *???????? Harun al-Rasyid Sorah Lubis, Bandung, Indonesia *???????? Kenneth Orski, Washington, DC *???????? Dojie Manahan, Quezon City, Philippines *???????? Naoko Matsumoto, Kanagawa, Japan? *???????? Suzanne May, London, UK *???????? Segundo Med?na Hern?ndez, Havana, Cuba * Kisan Mehta, Bombay, India *???????? Michael Meyer, Atlanta, GA *???????? Nobuo Mishima, Kyoto, Japan *???????? Dinesh Mohan, New Delhi, India *???????? Mikel Murga, Bilbao, Spain *???????? Peter Newman, Sydney, Australia *???????? Simon Norton, Cambridge, UK *???????? Margaret O'Mahony, Dublin, Ireland *???????? Richard Ongjerth, Budapest, Hungary *???????? Carlos F. Pardo, Bogota, Colombia *???????? Sujit Patwardhan, Pune, India *???????? Enrique Pe?alosa, Bogota, Colombia *???????? Maria Elvira Perez, Colombia *???????? Rudolf Petersen, Wuppertal, Germany *???????? Stephen Plowden, London, UK *???????? Robert Poole, Reason Institute, Los Angeles, CA *???????? Danijel Rebolj , Maribor, Slovenia *???????? Ernst Reichenbach, GTZ, Katmandu *???????? Michael A. Replogle, New York *???????? Gabriel Roth, Chevy Chase *???????? Preston Schiller, Huxley College of the Environment, Bellingham, WA *???????? Lee Schipper, EMBARQ/World Resources Institute *???????? Bodo Schwieger, Berlin, Germany *???????? Derek Scrafton, Adelaide, Australia *???????? Dimitris Sermpis, Athens, Greece *???????? Leena Silfverberg, Helsinki, Finland *???????? Robert Smith, Dorset, UK *???????? Ivan Stanic, Ljubljana, Slovenia *???????? Linda Steg, Groningen, Netherlands *???????? Martin Strid, Borlange, Sweden *???????? Craig Townsend, Montr?al, Canada *???????? Robert Stussi, Lisbon, Portugal *???????? Robert Thaler, Vienna, Austria *???????? Geetam Tiwari, New Delhi, India *???????? Tony Verelst, Zonhoven, Belgium *???????? Vukan Vuchic, Philadelphia, PA *???????? Conrad Wagner, Stans, Switzerland *???????? Bernie Wagenblast, Cranford, NJ *???????? Yngve Westerlund, Gothenburg, Sweden *???????? Dave Wetzel, London, UK *???????? John Whitelegg, Lancaster, UK *???????? Johnny Widen, Lulea, Sweden *???????? Peter Wiederkehr, Hamburg *???????? Roelof Wittink, Utrecht *???????? Kerry Wood, Wellington, New Zealand *???????? Guiping Xiao, Beijing. China *???????? Muhammad Younus, Karachi, Pakistan *???????? Christopher Zegras, Cambridge, MA *???????? Sue Zielinski, Toronto, Canada ? Note: By the way, I do not as yet have permissions to use most of these names.? *???????? So if you are on the list and agree to participate in principal, please send us a quick note with your full title, contact information, etc. so that the sponsors can see just how distinguished this group is. *???????? Participation, by the way, being always a matter of your personal convenience with no requirements other than to indicate your interest to look in from time to time and if the circumstances move you to pitch in with comments and suggestions. *???????? Key question: Can we, together, handle such a large list and still get a meaningful ?Voice??? Answer: We have managed to do so on a number of occasions in the past with no great problems.? I am confident that we can to it now. ? Next steps with this working list: ? Do you have a nomination for another highly qualified authority/networker suitable and ready to help round out this fine list? * I feel that despite the enormous quality of the group as it stands we are still a bit uncreatively short in the following areas: females, young people, people with mobility impediments, youth and school programs, and people struggling with genius and resolve with rural transport, in particular in the poorest parts of the world.? * We also could use more ?point expertise? in the following areas: local government, land use planning, road pricing and economic instruments, human powered transport, local government and decision making, public space management, access for people with mobility impediments, techniques of low cost infrastructure modification, transport/environment interface, electronic substitutes for physical movement, behavioral psychology, public administration, economics, sociology, social work, law enforcement and policing, new techniques of micro-modeling, public outreach, genuinely participatory planning, new media, and the list goes on. * Disaster relief and rebuilding * One technology based area that needs further definition and support is new forms of shared transport better adapted to the public?s demands in the 21st century, including those which offer ?car like? or better mobility, with much more emphasis on the interface with mobile telephony, taxis and paratransit, * Another importance vector to be brought in here: non-transport uses and users of the road and supporting infrastructure: peddlers, window shoppers, playing children, people meeting and talking, beggars, lonely people, street people (homeless) and once again the list goes on. * Finally, we could use a few more mayors and local leaders, who are after all among the defining forces for decision and change in the sector. ? How is the proposed process ?going to work? (Draft notes) ? *???????? Further background on our proposed collective contribution to this potentially important project is being drafted and will be available shortly.? (Draft notes follow below which are intended shortly to provide a fuller view of what we have in mind here.) Notes on the Third Voice Panel/Nominations: *???????? This panel does however, at least I hope, have a very definite common orientating ? which is to sustainable development and social justice. And sustainable development, just to be sure that we are very clear on this, is not something that we can put on the back burner and wait for another day.? It?s 2005 and sustainability requires immediate, priority attention.? It is not a luxury. It is an essential and a central priority. *???????? Each of these people is a considerable personality in her/his own right, highly respected, known for the quality and independence of their views, and their brains, energy, accomplishments, long term commitment and ethics. *???????? They have very different backgrounds, experience, areas of expertise, and at times even visions of their sector and the future. To this extent they complement and enhance each other by their very differentness. *???????? These people understand that the task of making their voices heard in a world in which old ideas and practices often continue to hold the stage is not an easy one, and that success depends on their ability to deal with the challenges.? They are accustomed to arguing their case in the face of considerable opposition and indifference, but they also are for the most part world level experts in listening (not always a strong point in a sector long dominated by people who had decided what was going to be best for the others). *???????? Each fully understands the full remit and complexity of the sector, and the fact that policies there must stretch far beyond the usual transport remit. *???????? They provide between them coverage of and sensitivity to the full reach of the complex interface between transport and its greater context.? Important since well more than half the decisions and actions that need to be motivated to move toward a better transportation system come in fact from outside the traditional transport nexus. *????????Tone of the exchanges: Informed, exploratory, caring, disputatious, and respectful (even when it hurts) *???????? Here by way of quick example are some of the fields they bring into the decision nexus, in addition to the more conventional transportation, engineering, planning, etc. skills: Land use planning, electronic substitutes for physical movement, human powered transport, local government and decision making, public space management, access for E&H, transport/environment interface, behavioral psychology, public administration, economics, law, policing, new techniques of micro-modeling, public outreach, genuinely participatory planning, much more emphasis on the interface with mobile telephony, new media, and the list goes on. *???????? The international coverage of the group is exemplary. *??????? We are making a special effort to secure a much higher proportion of female members than normally encountered in transport circles (notoriously male dominated... and that is a good part of their problem).? As of end 2004 we were at about 15%. We have to do better. *???????? There are a fair number of young people ? but we can try to do better. *???????? Another thing they have in common, a word that we do not hear all that often in the traditional transportation decision dialogues, is compassion.? Important word. *???????? In some cases these individuals do have an institutional affiliation, in most cases institutions and NGOs which are well known for their independence of views. Moreover we have seen in virtually all cases over the years, these particular people have meticulously?preserved their independent point of view and are given over to plain speaking and not varnishing or projection of a specific interest or point of view.? In short, they are thoroughly ethical. *???????? In this context, the list is actually considerable longer than what you see here.? In the interest of economy and efficiency we have made a practice of naming just one person per group or working cluster, in the knowledge that each will in turn work to ensure the participation of the others in their grouping. Also: * At the outset I had been targeting a considerably shorter list, but as a result of the feedback received in the last days from our lists and as the concept of what we perhaps should be targeting to do in this case, I became aware that it was going to be necessary to reach out in order to make sure that the full complexity and variety of the challenges of sustainable transport are properly covered. In the event, I see this as a dynamic, ever evolving group. *???????? I have decided (unless pushed to the contrary) to omit from this list all people with strong bureaucratic, institutional and economic ties and interests, and specifically proponents of unproven technologies and major infrastructure developments that are not fully and assiduously cross-checked with the full range of sustainability criteria). * Here is a quick and very personal characterization of the two other voices which I share with you by way of further introduction, based on a number of years of observation and, quite often, direct collaboration in a variety of programs and projects. (And here too your comments are earnestly solicited.) o The first Voice, that of the professional transportation establishment, is in the main highly conservative ? natural enough since they are the ones who are most directly effected by success or failure of what they do ? but not unamenable to change. To the contrary in most cases rightfully proud of the technical virtuosity they appreciate technical challenges, new techniques and in general any opportunity to do more and better; however they need to be reassured by clear examples and steady support from the top. o Our second Voice, the financial, industrial and political establishment, is by contrast considerably more change-resistant, especially if the changes represent a paradigm threat to the established way of doing things in the sector and its upstream ramifications (energy among them). Without wishing to make this into a Green or proto-Marxist diatribe, think of it this way: with each day that passes and the old, current transportation paradigm remains in place ? despite whatever it may cost in lost lives, illness, resource depletion, environmental impacts, destruction of community, cost to users, etc. etc. ? tens of billions of dollars of income continues to move into these corporations uninterrupted. On the side of the political establishment, the resistance to basic order change is more subtle, including not least of which fear of being punished in the polls, including for changes that ruffles the feathers of many entrenched interests, at least during the interim period that they take old and show that indeed their overall impact is largely positive. This is not to say that any of these groups will not get behind changes when needed and possible, but that by and large their time horizon for change is considerably more, let us say, leisurely than that of, actually, either of the other two voices. Fortunately, the attitude of the various individual members of this voice are far from uniform. * Incidentally, it is perhaps in these terms that the 2005 debate might usefully focus ? bearing in mind that the ultimately objective is not to win points or drag anyone through the mud publicly, but to get moving ahead on the New Mobility Agenda without unnecessary delay. For this to happen there has to be a certain level of harmony among the voices. And all three must be vigorously and openly present. *???????????????????????????????? I intend to propose that they invite the WBCSD ?Sustainable Mobility? team ? or possibly some kind of composite voice which brings together the usually well orchestrated performances of such important entrenched forces such as the automotive and energy industry, and such generally concordant groups as the IEA, ECMT, IAA, and the various well placed lobbies -- to come in as the third major voice/vision of the sector. ?This means they can cover the interests of the auto and transportation industry, very long term stuff, big expensive infrastructure projects, the lurch toward things such as the hydrogen economy, ?and their list goes on.? * Tipping Point Objective: The goal of the initiative set out here is no less than to use this high profile international debate to bring to the fore the competence and views of this important and thus far insufficiently recognized current of world transportation expertise. (?Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference?, Malcolm Gladwell.) ? Draft notes to be incorporated into final piece: ? This will be a moderated debate and sometimes our chair (that?s me until we find someone better which should not be hard) will cut off speakers, presenters who in his humble views are taking up too much of our valuable time and wondering a bit too far afield from our bottom line. ?? Why not bring in here representatives of organizations such as the various concerned units of the WBCSD, ECMT, EC, UITP, APTA, World Bank, UN ,and the list goes on and on as well as our outstanding individuals? Well because we have seen over the years how such people act in these circumstances. In truth they of the kinds of divided minds and responsibilities that inevitably occur when anyone has to keep weighing their personal/professional views on the one hand and what the mother organization might have in mind or have to worry about.? So we are sticking to individuals in this college. ? Out: anything that can be covered by other Voices as they chose: unproven systems that require large investments and extensive, expensive and inevitably slow new infrastructure development ? All have extensive international experience ? especially US and UK, Sweden, Germany and a few others in which there are more than one person cited. ? From et3 at et3.com Sun Jan 2 17:49:50 2005 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 03:49:50 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: "Principal Voices"- Sustainable Transportation as a ThirdVoice In-Reply-To: <003001c4f09d$83128fe0$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: <20050102085040.A2EDB2C4F2@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> -----Original Message-----From: Eric Britton [CLIP] >*???????? I have decided (unless pushed to the contrary) to omit from this >list all people with strong bureaucratic, institutional and economic ties >and interests, and specifically proponents of unproven technologies and >major infrastructure developments that are not fully and assiduously cross- >checked with the full range of sustainability criteria). [CLIP] Eric, Where might one find the list of "the full range of sustainability criteria" to cross-check new technology against? If there is not a defined process for this, how can one suggest that the New Mobility Initiative is indeed new? Why not instead, call the initiative "new ways to revive old mobility"? Is not that what one is left with if new technology is eliminated from consideration? Anyone from the ARTA group(s) want to add to my "push" for truly new technology to receive prudent consideration? 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > EcoPlan, Paris > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 2:35 AM > To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' > Subject: [sustran] "Principal Voices"- Sustainable Transportation as a > ThirdVoice > > ?Principal Voices?- Sustainable Transportation as a Third Voice > > A proposal > [CLIP] From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sun Jan 2 22:13:21 2005 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:13:21 +0100 Subject: [sustran] "the full range of sustainability criteria" to cross-check new technology against In-Reply-To: <20050102085040.A2EDB2C4F2@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <009101c4f0cc$da835050$6501a8c0@jazz> Fair question. Answer: Has to be able to show palpable on-street in-lung results in less than five or so years, max. Months is preferred. We call this Kyoto Compliance. Reason: We are facing an emergency situation and this is where we have chosen to concentrate the New Mobility Agenda (call it what you will). That's our choice, and others will make theirs. Regards, Eric Britton PS. Let's now cease posting this thread to all these people because I believe have better things to do. If they are here in Sustran and the New Mobility Agenda, it's because they share this vision and sense of immediate responsibility. ******************************************** PPS. Message to all: If you have not yet done your bit and provided some kind of contribution for the post-Tsunami relief efforts, do the right thing. If you don't know how, we invite you to repair to http://newmobility.org and click the relief organization of your choice. I am pleased to report that more than twenty of our compassionate colleagues have already made us of this easy, wide open door and been so kind as to inform of as much. And you? ************************************************ >>-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Daryl Oster Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 9:50 AM -----Original Message-----From: Eric Britton [CLIP] >* I have decided (unless pushed to the contrary) to omit from this >list all people with strong bureaucratic, institutional and economic ties >and interests, and specifically proponents of unproven technologies and >major infrastructure developments that are not fully and assiduously cross- >checked with the full range of sustainability criteria). [CLIP] Eric, Where might one find the list of "the full range of sustainability criteria" to cross-check new technology against? If there is not a defined process for this, how can one suggest that the New Mobility Initiative is indeed new? Why not instead, call the initiative "new ways to revive old mobility"? Is not that what one is left with if new technology is eliminated from consideration? Anyone from the ARTA group(s) want to add to my "push" for truly new technology to receive prudent consideration? Daryl Oster -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050102/3f63699f/attachment-0001.html From litman at vtpi.org Tue Jan 4 23:27:33 2005 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 06:27:33 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be" In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.1.6.0.20041227122639.039efe98@mail.highspeedplus.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20050104054128.00b837f8@mail.highspeedplus.com> Dear Mr. Oster, Thank you for sharing this information, but you had already sent it to me days ago. It doesn't make much sense for you to broadcast it to multiple lists. Over the last few weeks, since you've become aware of our institute's work, you have several times posted misguided and inappropriate insults about us on the Internet. You have accused me of producing arbitrary and "bogus" analysis, claimed that my work is biased by rail industry bribes, and criticized my work in ways indicating that you had not even read it or tried to understand the concepts (for example, to economists, free parking is clearly an underpricing of automobile travel, and the cost of vehicle waste is not simply littering). While I admire your youthful enthusiasm in support of Evacuated Tube Transport (I suggest that you spell it out in correspondence, many people will not understand the acronym), I hope you will understand that those of us who are a little older and more experienced look at the issues a quite differently. Like a lot of young technological enthusiasts, you seem to think that transportation planning is a horse race, simply identify the option with the best legs and run with it to become the next Henry Ford or Bill Gates. The Innovative Transportation Technologies website (http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans) identifies several dozen new technologies, mostly new drive systems or a variation on public transit, and each has its advocates who will argue that it is superior to all others, and if given a chance can easily solve all of our transportation problems, usually defined as either traffic congestion or depletion of energy resources. As a transportation planner and economists I look at things a little differently. I see a much broader set of problems and potential solutions. I don't think that any one solution will revolutionize future transportation, rather, many solutions have their place, some of which are quite low technology, such as improved walking and cycling conditions. You start with a technological solution, and then search for the economic reforms to support it. I start with the economic reforms, and let the technological solutions find their place. There is a pretty good case for concluding, as many of us do, that the starting point for implementing sustainable transportation technology is to correct transportation planning and market distortions that result in economically excessive automobile travel, which is why I am concerned about things like underpricing of road and parking facility use, and urban sprawl. If you are smart, I think you will realize this too. Let me explain. Whether you recognize it or not, ETT, PRT, LRT, and the rest of transportation alphabet soup are forms of public transit. They all experience large economies of scale: to be economically justified and successful they need maximum ridership. For example, a particular new technology might fail if it only serve 10% of trips, but very successful if it serves 15%. So maximizing ridership is essential. But ETT and the others face the same problem as current transit: since most households own a car, the variable costs of vehicle use are relatively low, and travelers receive free or subsidized parking at most destinations, there is little justification for most people to use alternatives. To be successful, ETT requires market reforms, such as road and parking pricing, and options such as carsharing, which allow households to reduce their vehicle ownership and rely more on public transit. Since common destinations are dispersed due to sprawl, and nearly all transit trips involve walking links, land use reforms (Smart Growth and New Urbanism) and improved walkability are important for the success of your technology. Our institute is concerned with these reforms because they make sense, regardless of the specific propulsion used in public transit systems. Our institute is not concerned with any individual technology. You have accused me, in a most inaccurate and inappropriate way, of being biased in favor of rail and against new technologies. But if you examine the publications on our website you will only find two about rail transit ("Rail Transit in America" and "Evaluating Criticism of Rail Transit"). There are dozens dealing with planning and market reforms, mobility and land use management, and nonmotorized transportation. If you really want innovation that improves transportation system efficiency you'll need these reforms as a foundation. Please, in the future, refrain from criticizing ideas and information before you have investigated them carefully, and don't broadcast insults to multiple lists. Best New Year Wishes to all, -Todd Litman At 12:20 PM 12/28/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote: >Todd, > >The summary mentions that in 1990 most worked and lived on farms; did you >not mean to say in 1890? > >Thanks for mentioning ETT under your heading "New Technologies". Bracketing >ETT with old jetpacks and flying cars is unfair, as is the blanket >dismissal. This is especially true since ETT: increases energy efficiency >by more than a factor of 50, maximizes use of lower cost and alternative >fuel, and improves navigation and vehicle flow. Clearly jet packs and >flying cars decrease fuel efficiency, and have a narrow dependence on >specialized fuels (as was the case with SST). > >There are at least two possibilities explaining your blanket statement: you >have not fully investigated and understand ETT, or you are attempting to >discredit ETT to protect other agendas. If you have any criticism of ETT >that supports your view, please be specific. > >As far as the data you seek, Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Ph.D., Hofstra University, >Hempstead, New York, has some good data on shipping costs with a wide time >scale. I saw the detailed information you seek in graphical form somewhere >on the website: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/ . The material is >extensive, I am sorry I do not have time to be more specific as to the exact >page. > >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 > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > I'm writing to let you know about our latest draft publication, "The > > Future > > Isn't What It Used To Be: Changing Trends And Their Implications For > > Transport Planning" (http://www.vtpi.org/future.pdf). > > > > This paper examines various demographic, economic and market trends that > > affect travel demand, and their implications for transport planning during > > the next century. During Twentieth Century per capita motor vehicle travel > > demand increased by an order of magnitude. Many of the factors that caused > > this growth have peaked in developed countries and are likely to decline. > > This indicates that future transport demand will be increasingly diverse. > > Transport planning can reflect these shifts by reducing emphasis on > > automobile travel and increasing support for alternative modes and smart > > growth development patterns. > > > > I would appreciate your feedback. Please let me know if you find any > > errors > > or omissions, or if you have any other ideas of factors that affect past > > and future travel demand. Also, please let me know if you know a source of > > good time-series shipping cost data, such as the real cost of transporting > > a ton of freight from New York to London or San Francisco for each decade > > from 1900 to 2000. > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > > believed to be clean. > > > > > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship >e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's >latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent >editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ 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 ericbruun at earthlink.net Wed Jan 5 08:05:32 2005 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:05:32 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT Message-ID: <00ae01c4f2db$7de5fa80$18fa45cf@earthlink.net> > > PTP Digest 2005/01/03-A = CONTENTS > > * NJ's PRT 'Gadgetbahn' is a boondoggle > > New York Press Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004 =PTP==================================================== > > > > http://www.nypress.com/17/52/pagetwo/newshole8.cfm > > > > New York Press > > Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004 > > > > Gadgetbahn > > A few weeks ago, the state of New Jersey appropriated $75,000 to study > > the development of a personal rapid transit system for Long Branch, a > > shore town just south of New York City. If PRT projects elsewhere are a > > sign of things to come, it's the beginning of an epic boondoggle. > > > > As described by its promoters, PRT is a computerized, driverless mass > > transit system. The passenger enters a sleek, four-person pod that is > > guaranteed to be waiting at the station, swipes a fare card, punches in a > > destination and goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16 feet > > above street level with stations every two or three blocks apart. PRT > > advocates promise transportation with no wait, no traffic and no smelly > > strangers. > > > > In theory. In practice PRT has never worked anywhere despite 30 years of > > study and development. Combining the small carrying capacity of an > > automobile with the expensive infrastructure of mass transit, PRT offers > > the worst of both worlds. If you want to see what it looks like, watch The > > Incredibles. In the movie, the evil villain's henchmen travel about their > > volcanic- island lair in pods that look remarkably similar to the system > > SkyWeb Express is selling to New Jersey. > > > > It's fitting that a cartoon villain should choose PRT as his ride of choice. > > Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major scam. In > > Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere, PRT has burned > > through tens of millions of dollars of public and private investment. The > > only tangible result has been to clear the way for highway construction > > and make legitimate mass transit projects more difficult to build. In at least > > a few cases, after finally running PRT out of town, citizens learned that the > > public officials most enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes in the companies developing it. > > > > There are signs that all of this is now underway across the river. PRT > > advocates expect to wring another $1,000,000 out of the New Jersey > > legislatures shortly. They dream of a pod network stretching from Atlantic > > City to the misbegotten Xanadu sports and entertainment complex at the Meadowlands. > > > > The PRT craze is a clear sign that an endgame is underway. Suburban > > Americans are waking up to the fact that their car-based lifestyle is broken > > and unsustainable. They are starting to look for solutions, but their vision > > is limited by an "autonomist" ideology that places personal convenience > > above all else, no matter what the cost. Rather than looking at > > transportation options that we know work (PRT gurus derisively refer to > > the train as a "19th-century technology"), Americans are looking for a > > high-tech miracle to save them from the rough road that is so clearly ahead. PRT ain't it. > > > > Volume 17, Issue 52 > > =PTP=================================================== > > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01032005.html > > > > CounterPunch: > > November 27 / 28, 2004 > > > > Strange Bedfellows > > > > Greens and Republicans > > > > By JOSHUA FRANK > > > > You probably haven't heard of it. It goes by the name of Personal Rapid > > Transit (PRT), and it is fast becoming the latest fad of the Green Party and others. > > > > So what is this PRT anyway? As Aaron Naparstek recently wrote in NY > > Press, "PRT is a computerized, driverless mass transit system. The > > passenger enters a sleek, four-person pod that is guaranteed to be > > waiting at the station, swipes a fare card, punches in a destination and > > goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16 feet above street level > > with stations every two or three blocks apart. PRT advocates promise > > transportation with no wait, no traffic and no smelly strangers." > > > > Even David Cobb, the anointed leader of the GP, has touted PRT as a > > "Green Technology" and trumped its potential benefits while > > "campaigning" in Minnesota last year. Dean Zimmerman a Minneapolis, > > Minnesota city councilman and GP member says that PRT "is going to be > > a major breakthrough in how people move around urban centers." > > Zimmerman has even spoken publicly with right-wing Republicans to > > make a case for more public funds to study the technology. > > > > Sounds odd. Are Republicans turning green on us? Or is the national > > Green Party losing its marbles? Sorry to say, it's the latter. > > > > In reality PRT has never worked despite over 30 years of research and > > development. Combining the small carrying capacity of a small car, with > > the expensive infrastructure of mass transit, PRT offers the worst of both > > worlds. Plus, it's the brainchild of Ed Anderson's private corporation Taxi > > 2000, who has already made a bundle of cash by convincing city and > > state governments that it is in their best interest to hand over phat research checks. > > > > Although Los Angeles and Santa Cruz California have voted down > > proposals to allocate money to study the futuristic transit system, New > > Jersey, which has already appropriated $75,000 to PRT, plans to up that > > by $100,000 this coming year. While out in Minneapolis and Duluth, > > Greens and others are hoping their government will pony up the needed cash to go through with the PRT study. > > > > Despite the past failures of PRT, hopes among its boosters remain high. > > Perhaps their hopes aren't for a green public transit system; rather they > > hope PRT can continue to swindle even more loot out of government accounts. > > > > "PRT is really a stalking horse for the pro-highway, anti transit lobby," > > claims Ken Avidor who has kept a watchful eye on PRT in his home state > > on Minnesota. "It is supported by highway engineering firms, right-wing > > Republicans like [Minnesota] State Senator Michele Bachmann and Tom Delay." > > > > This new marriage surely makes for strange bedfellows, as Greens and > > Republicans seem to see eye to eye on the PRT boondoggle. Plus, > > Greens should know the history of those they are jumping into bed with. > > > > The state of Illinois and Raytheon, the maker of "Bunker Buster" bombs, > > Tomahawk, Patriot missiles, and other assorted weaponry -- has invested > > over $38 million to study PRT in the Chicago metro area. > > > > "Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major scam," > > writes Naparstek in NY Press. "In Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Seattle, > > Chicago and elsewhere, PRT has burned through tens of millions of > > dollars of public and private investment. The only tangible result has been > > to clear the way for highway construction and make legitimate mass > > transit projects more difficult to build. In at least a few cases, after finally > > running PRT out of town, citizens learned that the public officials most > > enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes in the companies developing it." > > > > Joshua Frank is the author of the forthcoming book, Left Out!: How > > Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, to be released in early 2005 by > > Common Courage Press. He can be reached at: > > frank_joshua@hotmail.com > > > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed Jan 5 18:24:42 2005 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:24:42 +0100 Subject: [sustran] "World Transport Policy & Practice" Volume 10, Number 3 - Commentary Message-ID: <009301c4f308$67ded040$6501a8c0@jazz> Dear Daryl Oster and Sustran- and NewMobilityCafe-members The usefulness of scientific journals is sometimes discussed - someone told me that the average readership of a paper in a scientific journal is less than two (plus the referees and the editor). So getting a comment for your paper published world-wide within 24 hours of publication is really something and might indicate that World Transport Policy and Practice must be counted among the most important journals. I am grateful to Mr. Oster for giving me opportunity to comment on some of the main points in his statements about our paper ( http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/wtpp10.3.pdf). I agree with Mr. Oster that our indicators are not all-comprehensive and that other factors must be taken into account to find the most efficient solution (in economic and/or environmental terms) in every single case. However, there is a need for indicators, which on an aggregated scale (e.g. national, supply chain, company) measures the quantity of transport used to bring products from origin to destination, e.g. from the primary producers to the consumer. If you want to know how logistical decisions influence transport you have to have suitable measures. If you want to reduce the necessary transport and it's impacts, you have to know where to focus. This is the scope of our paper, as it has been the focal point of several EU-projects (REDEFINE, TRILOG, SULOGTRA), which we have built upon. The indicators proposed are biased, Mr. Oster claims, to favor ship and rail transport. He is right if you just compare the transport efficiency measure across different transport modes - it will come as no surprise for anyone that in these terms transport by ship is very efficient compared to transport by van. So we do not make this comparison, and stress that efficiency measures must be compared by transport mode. This is what is done in another paper in the same journal (Per Homann Jespersen: The transport content of products) where an example of a transport-LCA (life cycle analysis) is presented. Comparing within the same transport mode is somewhat simpler. But I must disagree with Mr. Osters statement, that 'The ratio of ton-kilometers and vehicle-kilometers is equal to vehicle capacity.' It is, if the vehicles are always full loaded, but they are not, and one of the main issues in reducing freight transport is how to increase the vehicle utilization. For some interesting discussions and data on this, I can refer to the studies made by Prof. McKinnon and colleagues on the food supply chain in the UK ('Analysis of Transport Efficiency in the UK Food Supply Chain - Full Report of the 2002 KPI survey', http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/logistics/pdf/Kpi2003.pdf). Other papers by my colleagues in the same issue of World Transport Policy & Practice have built on the foundation of the paper discussed here for looking at e.g. a supply chain and a piece if infrastructure. Whether we can continue to develop this approach into something fruitful depends very much on critical comments like Mr. Oster's pointing at weaknesses and where we have to be more precise in our problem statements. We are grateful for this and hope that others will take up this good example. Sincerely Per Homann Jespersen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Per Homann Jespersen, Assc.Prof. FLUX - Centre for Transport Research Dept. of Environment, Technology and Social Studies, Roskilde University House P7, P.O.Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Phone +45 4674 2497 Cell phone +45 2449 4295 Fax +45 4674 3041 mailto:phj@ruc.dk -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: EcoPlan, Paris [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org] Sendt: 21. december 2004 06:55 Til: 'New Mobility Cafe [NMC]' Cc: 'John Whitelegg'; 'Per Homann Jespersen' Emne: "World Transport Policy & Practice" Volume 10,Number 3 - Commentary We post this message here with copies to the editor of World Transport Policy and Practice and the visiting editor of their special number, thinking that this might lead to some useful discussion? ***************************************************************** -----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Daryl Oster Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 9:42 PM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' The paper "logistics and transport a conceptual model" (in WTPP v10#3) advocates methods that unrealistically reward trains and ships, and obscure the advantages of other modes. On the last quarter of page 9, the definition of the indicator of transport "transport efficiency" is defined as the ratio between ton-kilometers and vehicle-kilometers. This definition may yield efficiency indications with traditional transportation modes like ships, trains, and trucks, however it cannot be considered a comprehensive measure of efficiency. Efficiency has several dimensions, including: Infrastructure cost, Time cost, Labor cost, and Energy cost, all compared on a ton-kilometer basis. Also, there must be a comparison of the distance the load travels in vehicles along the routes, compared with the straight-line distance from origin to destination that the load is transported (distance efficiency). The ratio of ton-kilometers and vehicle-kilometers is equal to vehicle capacity. So the "logistics and transport a conceptual model" on pg.9 really states that efficiency scales with vehicle size. This is only true if there are savings in cost associated with vehicle size. There are many instances where ton-km costs do NOT scale inversely with vehicle size: *Infrastructure cost - the tooling cost for large vehicles is much greater, and the number of vehicles produced is small, so vehicle cost per ton of capacity scales with size. *Time cost - it takes longer to assemble most general cargo loads in large vehicles than in small vehicles, so many elements of time cost scale with vehicle size. *Labor cost - labor savings is one of the main reasons vehicles have traditionally been made large. The use of automation eliminates this advantage for large vehicles. Large vehicles typically have the labor disadvantage of requiring several loading and unloading and transfers, and the need for storage while waiting for load assembly and disassembly. *Energy cost - the energy efficiency advantage of using large vehicles is mostly related to fluid dynamics. This advantage is only achieved if the vehicle is full, and for travel in a fluid like air or water. There is no advantage if viscosity effects are mitigated (as with ETT - see www.et3.com ). *The use of large vehicles usually results in a reduction of distance efficiency compared with using small vehicles. Large vehicles are more constrained: large ships cannot use small channels, or harbors, increasing the distance the load must travel, or involving transfers to other modes; trains cannot easily cross mountains or rivers; trucks on a delivery route increase the distance the average delivery pallet must travel from the origin to the destination. The questions raised in the summary on page 10-11: "Is it possible to divert transport into more environmentally friendly directions, to create sustainable transport solutions or even to create sustainable supply and demand chains? Will it be possible to diminish the growth of transport without conflicting with welfare goals on the macro level and thereby decouple transport and economic growth as was the case in the 1970s in the energy sector? These questions, however, require some new answers to be given, which means creating new knowledge around transport and its integration in the processes of production, distribution and logistics. This paper has tried to move the first steps in that direction by presenting some frameworks of analysing the multiple relations between transport and logistics." Indicates the intent of the authors are noble, however the methods of analysis indicate that either the authors have a shallow understanding of transportation efficiency, or they have a hidden agenda of creating policy to protect trains and ships from further innovation in transportation efficiency promised by automation and new modes. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050105/4f99223e/attachment-0001.html From tara.bartee at dot.state.fl.us Thu Jan 6 01:41:44 2005 From: tara.bartee at dot.state.fl.us (tara.bartee@dot.state.fl.us) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:41:44 -0500 Subject: [sustran] PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Paper announcement Message-ID: TRB E-Newsletter To 01/04/2005 06:01 TRANSRESEARCHENEWS@LS.NAS.EDU PM cc Subject Please respond to TRB Transportation Research TRB E-Newsletter E-Newsletter - January 4, 2005 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ->http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=4514 TRB?s Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1878 examines the initial findings on using low-cost infrared detectors to monitor movement of pedestrians; a methodology to assess design features for pedestrian and bicyclist crossings at signalized intersections; characteristics of emerging road and trail users and their safety; and a stated survey assessment of the trade-offs between time, cost, and uncertainty by commuters in Hyderabad, India. Tara Bartee Public Transit Office FDOT Voice 850-414-4520 FAX 850-414-4508 E-Mail tara.bartee@dot.state.fl.us From alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk Thu Jan 6 07:21:08 2005 From: alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk (Alan P Howes) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:21:08 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT In-Reply-To: <00ae01c4f2db$7de5fa80$18fa45cf@earthlink.net> References: <00ae01c4f2db$7de5fa80$18fa45cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: So who was plagiarising who here? Problem is with 'merkins, they also have to be so polemical about anything. I'm rather more sanguine about PRT - I reckon we will see a few successful implementations in the next ten years, in fairly specific circumstances where development densities are low and there is no strong CBD. On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:05:32 -0500, "Eric Bruun" wrote to "Sierra Club Forum on Transportation Issues" , , : >> > PTP Digest 2005/01/03-A = CONTENTS > >> > * NJ's PRT 'Gadgetbahn' is a boondoggle >> > New York Press Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004 > =PTP==================================================== >> > >> > http://www.nypress.com/17/52/pagetwo/newshole8.cfm >> > >> > New York Press >> > Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004 >> > >> > Gadgetbahn > >> > A few weeks ago, the state of New Jersey appropriated $75,000 to study >> > the development of a personal rapid transit system for Long Branch, a >> > shore town just south of New York City. If PRT projects elsewhere are a >> > sign of things to come, it's the beginning of an epic boondoggle. >> > >> > As described by its promoters, PRT is a computerized, driverless mass >> > transit system. The passenger enters a sleek, four-person pod that is >> > guaranteed to be waiting at the station, swipes a fare card, punches in >a >> > destination and goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16 feet >> > above street level with stations every two or three blocks apart. PRT >> > advocates promise transportation with no wait, no traffic and no smelly >> > strangers. >> > >> > In theory. In practice PRT has never worked anywhere despite 30 years of >> > study and development. Combining the small carrying capacity of an >> > automobile with the expensive infrastructure of mass transit, PRT offers >> > the worst of both worlds. If you want to see what it looks like, watch >The >> > Incredibles. In the movie, the evil villain's henchmen travel about >their >> > volcanic- island lair in pods that look remarkably similar to the system >> > SkyWeb Express is selling to New Jersey. >> > >> > It's fitting that a cartoon villain should choose PRT as his ride of >choice. >> > Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major scam. In >> > Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere, PRT has burned >> > through tens of millions of dollars of public and private investment. >The >> > only tangible result has been to clear the way for highway construction >> > and make legitimate mass transit projects more difficult to build. In at >least >> > a few cases, after finally running PRT out of town, citizens learned >that the >> > public officials most enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes in the >companies developing it. >> > >> > There are signs that all of this is now underway across the river. PRT >> > advocates expect to wring another $1,000,000 out of the New Jersey >> > legislatures shortly. They dream of a pod network stretching from >Atlantic >> > City to the misbegotten Xanadu sports and entertainment complex at the >Meadowlands. >> > >> > The PRT craze is a clear sign that an endgame is underway. Suburban >> > Americans are waking up to the fact that their car-based lifestyle is >broken >> > and unsustainable. They are starting to look for solutions, but their >vision >> > is limited by an "autonomist" ideology that places personal convenience >> > above all else, no matter what the cost. Rather than looking at >> > transportation options that we know work (PRT gurus derisively refer to >> > the train as a "19th-century technology"), Americans are looking for a >> > high-tech miracle to save them from the rough road that is so clearly >ahead. PRT ain't it. >> > >> > Volume 17, Issue 52 >> > >=PTP=================================================== >> > >> > http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01032005.html >> > >> > CounterPunch: >> > November 27 / 28, 2004 >> > >> > Strange Bedfellows >> > >> > Greens and Republicans >> > >> > By JOSHUA FRANK >> > >> > You probably haven't heard of it. It goes by the name of Personal Rapid >> > Transit (PRT), and it is fast becoming the latest fad of the Green Party >and others. >> > >> > So what is this PRT anyway? As Aaron Naparstek recently wrote in NY >> > Press, "PRT is a computerized, driverless mass transit system. The >> > passenger enters a sleek, four-person pod that is guaranteed to be >> > waiting at the station, swipes a fare card, punches in a destination and >> > goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16 feet above street >level >> > with stations every two or three blocks apart. PRT advocates promise >> > transportation with no wait, no traffic and no smelly strangers." >> > >> > Even David Cobb, the anointed leader of the GP, has touted PRT as a >> > "Green Technology" and trumped its potential benefits while >> > "campaigning" in Minnesota last year. Dean Zimmerman a Minneapolis, >> > Minnesota city councilman and GP member says that PRT "is going to be >> > a major breakthrough in how people move around urban centers." >> > Zimmerman has even spoken publicly with right-wing Republicans to >> > make a case for more public funds to study the technology. >> > >> > Sounds odd. Are Republicans turning green on us? Or is the national >> > Green Party losing its marbles? Sorry to say, it's the latter. >> > >> > In reality PRT has never worked despite over 30 years of research and >> > development. Combining the small carrying capacity of a small car, with >> > the expensive infrastructure of mass transit, PRT offers the worst of >both >> > worlds. Plus, it's the brainchild of Ed Anderson's private corporation >Taxi >> > 2000, who has already made a bundle of cash by convincing city and >> > state governments that it is in their best interest to hand over phat >research checks. >> > >> > Although Los Angeles and Santa Cruz California have voted down >> > proposals to allocate money to study the futuristic transit system, New >> > Jersey, which has already appropriated $75,000 to PRT, plans to up that >> > by $100,000 this coming year. While out in Minneapolis and Duluth, >> > Greens and others are hoping their government will pony up the needed >cash to go through with the PRT study. >> > >> > Despite the past failures of PRT, hopes among its boosters remain high. >> > Perhaps their hopes aren't for a green public transit system; rather >they >> > hope PRT can continue to swindle even more loot out of government >accounts. >> > >> > "PRT is really a stalking horse for the pro-highway, anti transit >lobby," >> > claims Ken Avidor who has kept a watchful eye on PRT in his home state >> > on Minnesota. "It is supported by highway engineering firms, right-wing >> > Republicans like [Minnesota] State Senator Michele Bachmann and Tom >Delay." >> > >> > This new marriage surely makes for strange bedfellows, as Greens and >> > Republicans seem to see eye to eye on the PRT boondoggle. Plus, >> > Greens should know the history of those they are jumping into bed with. >> > >> > The state of Illinois and Raytheon, the maker of "Bunker Buster" bombs, >> > Tomahawk, Patriot missiles, and other assorted weaponry -- has invested >> > over $38 million to study PRT in the Chicago metro area. >> > >> > "Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major scam," >> > writes Naparstek in NY Press. "In Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Seattle, >> > Chicago and elsewhere, PRT has burned through tens of millions of >> > dollars of public and private investment. The only tangible result has >been >> > to clear the way for highway construction and make legitimate mass >> > transit projects more difficult to build. In at least a few cases, after >finally >> > running PRT out of town, citizens learned that the public officials most >> > enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes in the companies developing >it." >> > >> > Joshua Frank is the author of the forthcoming book, Left Out!: How >> > Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, to be released in early 2005 by >> > Common Courage Press. He can be reached at: >> > frank_joshua@hotmail.com >> > >> > -- Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] From i-ce at cycling.nl Thu Jan 6 17:21:00 2005 From: i-ce at cycling.nl (i-ce@cycling.nl) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:21:00 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT In-Reply-To: References: <00ae01c4f2db$7de5fa80$18fa45cf@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <41DD02FC.9549.117C80@localhost> I know of an example where it is working (Rotterdam, it is called automated people mover). It is not fast (maximum waiting time 10 minutes). It is not near the city centre, so you are right about the low densities. It connects a metrostation with a new business park. On 5 Jan 2005 at 22:21, Alan P Howes wrote: > So who was plagiarising who here? > > Problem is with 'merkins, they also have to be so polemical about > anything. > > I'm rather more sanguine about PRT - I reckon we will see a few > successful implementations in the next ten years, in fairly specific > circumstances where development densities are low and there is no > strong CBD. > > On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:05:32 -0500, "Eric Bruun" > wrote to "Sierra Club Forum on > Transportation Issues" , > , : > > >> > PTP Digest 2005/01/03-A = CONTENTS > > > >> > * NJ's PRT 'Gadgetbahn' is a boondoggle > >> > New York Press Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004 > > =PTP==================================================== > >> > > >> > http://www.nypress.com/17/52/pagetwo/newshole8.cfm > >> > > >> > New York Press > >> > Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004 > >> > > >> > Gadgetbahn > > > >> > A few weeks ago, the state of New Jersey appropriated $75,000 to > >> > study the development of a personal rapid transit system for Long > >> > Branch, a shore town just south of New York City. If PRT projects > >> > elsewhere are a sign of things to come, it's the beginning of an > >> > epic boondoggle. > >> > > >> > As described by its promoters, PRT is a computerized, driverless > >> > mass transit system. The passenger enters a sleek, four-person > >> > pod that is guaranteed to be waiting at the station, swipes a > >> > fare card, punches in > >a > >> > destination and goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16 > >> > feet above street level with stations every two or three blocks > >> > apart. PRT advocates promise transportation with no wait, no > >> > traffic and no smelly strangers. > >> > > >> > In theory. In practice PRT has never worked anywhere despite 30 > >> > years of study and development. Combining the small carrying > >> > capacity of an automobile with the expensive infrastructure of > >> > mass transit, PRT offers the worst of both worlds. If you want to > >> > see what it looks like, watch > >The > >> > Incredibles. In the movie, the evil villain's henchmen travel > >> > about > >their > >> > volcanic- island lair in pods that look remarkably similar to the > >> > system SkyWeb Express is selling to New Jersey. > >> > > >> > It's fitting that a cartoon villain should choose PRT as his ride > >> > of > >choice. > >> > Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major scam. > >> > In Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere, PRT > >> > has burned through tens of millions of dollars of public and > >> > private investment. > >The > >> > only tangible result has been to clear the way for highway > >> > construction and make legitimate mass transit projects more > >> > difficult to build. In at > >least > >> > a few cases, after finally running PRT out of town, citizens > >> > learned > >that the > >> > public officials most enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes > >> > in the > >companies developing it. > >> > > >> > There are signs that all of this is now underway across the > >> > river. PRT advocates expect to wring another $1,000,000 out of > >> > the New Jersey legislatures shortly. They dream of a pod network > >> > stretching from > >Atlantic > >> > City to the misbegotten Xanadu sports and entertainment complex > >> > at the > >Meadowlands. > >> > > >> > The PRT craze is a clear sign that an endgame is underway. > >> > Suburban Americans are waking up to the fact that their car-based > >> > lifestyle is > >broken > >> > and unsustainable. They are starting to look for solutions, but > >> > their > >vision > >> > is limited by an "autonomist" ideology that places personal > >> > convenience above all else, no matter what the cost. Rather than > >> > looking at transportation options that we know work (PRT gurus > >> > derisively refer to the train as a "19th-century technology"), > >> > Americans are looking for a high-tech miracle to save them from > >> > the rough road that is so clearly > >ahead. PRT ain't it. > >> > > >> > Volume 17, Issue 52 > >> > > >=PTP=================================================== > >> > > >> > http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01032005.html > >> > > >> > CounterPunch: > >> > November 27 / 28, 2004 > >> > > >> > Strange Bedfellows > >> > > >> > Greens and Republicans > >> > > >> > By JOSHUA FRANK > >> > > >> > You probably haven't heard of it. It goes by the name of Personal > >> > Rapid Transit (PRT), and it is fast becoming the latest fad of > >> > the Green Party > >and others. > >> > > >> > So what is this PRT anyway? As Aaron Naparstek recently wrote in > >> > NY Press, "PRT is a computerized, driverless mass transit system. > >> > The passenger enters a sleek, four-person pod that is guaranteed > >> > to be waiting at the station, swipes a fare card, punches in a > >> > destination and goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16 > >> > feet above street > >level > >> > with stations every two or three blocks apart. PRT advocates > >> > promise transportation with no wait, no traffic and no smelly > >> > strangers." > >> > > >> > Even David Cobb, the anointed leader of the GP, has touted PRT as > >> > a "Green Technology" and trumped its potential benefits while > >> > "campaigning" in Minnesota last year. Dean Zimmerman a > >> > Minneapolis, Minnesota city councilman and GP member says that > >> > PRT "is going to be a major breakthrough in how people move > >> > around urban centers." Zimmerman has even spoken publicly with > >> > right-wing Republicans to make a case for more public funds to > >> > study the technology. > >> > > >> > Sounds odd. Are Republicans turning green on us? Or is the > >> > national Green Party losing its marbles? Sorry to say, it's the > >> > latter. > >> > > >> > In reality PRT has never worked despite over 30 years of research > >> > and development. Combining the small carrying capacity of a small > >> > car, with the expensive infrastructure of mass transit, PRT > >> > offers the worst of > >both > >> > worlds. Plus, it's the brainchild of Ed Anderson's private > >> > corporation > >Taxi > >> > 2000, who has already made a bundle of cash by convincing city > >> > and state governments that it is in their best interest to hand > >> > over phat > >research checks. > >> > > >> > Although Los Angeles and Santa Cruz California have voted down > >> > proposals to allocate money to study the futuristic transit > >> > system, New Jersey, which has already appropriated $75,000 to > >> > PRT, plans to up that by $100,000 this coming year. While out in > >> > Minneapolis and Duluth, Greens and others are hoping their > >> > government will pony up the needed > >cash to go through with the PRT study. > >> > > >> > Despite the past failures of PRT, hopes among its boosters remain > >> > high. Perhaps their hopes aren't for a green public transit > >> > system; rather > >they > >> > hope PRT can continue to swindle even more loot out of government > >accounts. > >> > > >> > "PRT is really a stalking horse for the pro-highway, anti transit > >lobby," > >> > claims Ken Avidor who has kept a watchful eye on PRT in his home > >> > state on Minnesota. "It is supported by highway engineering > >> > firms, right-wing Republicans like [Minnesota] State Senator > >> > Michele Bachmann and Tom > >Delay." > >> > > >> > This new marriage surely makes for strange bedfellows, as Greens > >> > and Republicans seem to see eye to eye on the PRT boondoggle. > >> > Plus, Greens should know the history of those they are jumping > >> > into bed with. > >> > > >> > The state of Illinois and Raytheon, the maker of "Bunker Buster" > >> > bombs, Tomahawk, Patriot missiles, and other assorted weaponry -- > >> > has invested over $38 million to study PRT in the Chicago metro > >> > area. > >> > > >> > "Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major > >> > scam," writes Naparstek in NY Press. "In Minneapolis, Cincinnati, > >> > Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere, PRT has burned through tens of > >> > millions of dollars of public and private investment. The only > >> > tangible result has > >been > >> > to clear the way for highway construction and make legitimate > >> > mass transit projects more difficult to build. In at least a few > >> > cases, after > >finally > >> > running PRT out of town, citizens learned that the public > >> > officials most enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes in the > >> > companies developing > >it." > >> > > >> > Joshua Frank is the author of the forthcoming book, Left Out!: > >> > How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, to be released in > >> > early 2005 by Common Courage Press. He can be reached at: > >> > frank_joshua@hotmail.com > >> > > >> > > > > -- > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > *************************************************** I-ce = Interface for Cycling Expertise New adress: Trans 3 3512 JJ Utrecht The Netherlands tel: +31 30 230 4521 fax: +31 30 231 2384 email: i-ce@cycling.nl www.cycling.nl *************************************************** From Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk Thu Jan 6 18:35:50 2005 From: Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:35:50 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT Message-ID: I'm not familiar with this Rotterdam example - but my suspicion is that it is not a "true" PRT. The PRT system I am most familiar with is ULTra (see http://www.atsltd.co.uk/); the key characteristics of this system are that it is a "spider web" network , not a single line, and that users are offered a direct, non-stop transit from any stop on the network to any other stop - in theory with no wait time. ULTra uses battery-powered, rubber-tyred and electronically guided vehicles carrying up to 4 people on a (probably) elevated guideway. NB - neither I nor my employer has a financial stake in ULTra, nor any other PRT system! :-) But I do believe it's a concept whose time will come. Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 240 2892 (direct) (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email. Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of CBP, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. _______________________________ >>> 06/01/05 08:21:00 >>> I know of an example where it is working (Rotterdam, it is called automated people mover). It is not fast (maximum waiting time 10 minutes). It is not near the city centre, so you are right about the low densities. It connects a metrostation with a new business park. On 5 Jan 2005 at 22:21, Alan P Howes wrote: > So who was plagiarising who here? > > Problem is with 'merkins, they also have to be so polemical about > anything. > > I'm rather more sanguine about PRT - I reckon we will see a few > successful implementations in the next ten years, in fairly specific > circumstances where development densities are low and there is no > strong CBD. > > On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:05:32 -0500, "Eric Bruun" > wrote to "Sierra Club Forum on > Transportation Issues" , > , : > > >> > PTP Digest 2005/01/03-A = CONTENTS > > > >> > * NJ's PRT 'Gadgetbahn' is a boondoggle > >> > New York Press Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004 > > =PTP==================================================== > >> > > >> > http://www.nypress.com/17/52/pagetwo/newshole8.cfm > >> > > >> > New York Press > >> > Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004 > >> > > >> > Gadgetbahn > > > >> > A few weeks ago, the state of New Jersey appropriated $75,000 to > >> > study the development of a personal rapid transit system for Long > >> > Branch, a shore town just south of New York City. If PRT projects > >> > elsewhere are a sign of things to come, it's the beginning of an > >> > epic boondoggle. > >> > > >> > As described by its promoters, PRT is a computerized, driverless > >> > mass transit system. The passenger enters a sleek, four-person > >> > pod that is guaranteed to be waiting at the station, swipes a > >> > fare card, punches in > >a > >> > destination and goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16 > >> > feet above street level with stations every two or three blocks > >> > apart. PRT advocates promise transportation with no wait, no > >> > traffic and no smelly strangers. > >> > > >> > In theory. In practice PRT has never worked anywhere despite 30 > >> > years of study and development. Combining the small carrying > >> > capacity of an automobile with the expensive infrastructure of > >> > mass transit, PRT offers the worst of both worlds. If you want to > >> > see what it looks like, watch > >The > >> > Incredibles. In the movie, the evil villain's henchmen travel > >> > about > >their > >> > volcanic- island lair in pods that look remarkably similar to the > >> > system SkyWeb Express is selling to New Jersey. > >> > > >> > It's fitting that a cartoon villain should choose PRT as his ride > >> > of > >choice. > >> > Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major scam. > >> > In Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere, PRT > >> > has burned through tens of millions of dollars of public and > >> > private investment. > >The > >> > only tangible result has been to clear the way for highway > >> > construction and make legitimate mass transit projects more > >> > difficult to build. In at > >least > >> > a few cases, after finally running PRT out of town, citizens > >> > learned > >that the > >> > public officials most enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes > >> > in the > >companies developing it. > >> > > >> > There are signs that all of this is now underway across the > >> > river. PRT advocates expect to wring another $1,000,000 out of > >> > the New Jersey legislatures shortly. They dream of a pod network > >> > stretching from > >Atlantic > >> > City to the misbegotten Xanadu sports and entertainment complex > >> > at the > >Meadowlands. > >> > > >> > The PRT craze is a clear sign that an endgame is underway. > >> > Suburban Americans are waking up to the fact that their car-based > >> > lifestyle is > >broken > >> > and unsustainable. They are starting to look for solutions, but > >> > their > >vision > >> > is limited by an "autonomist" ideology that places personal > >> > convenience above all else, no matter what the cost. Rather than > >> > looking at transportation options that we know work (PRT gurus > >> > derisively refer to the train as a "19th-century technology"), > >> > Americans are looking for a high-tech miracle to save them from > >> > the rough road that is so clearly > >ahead. PRT ain't it. > >> > > >> > Volume 17, Issue 52 > >> > > >=PTP=================================================== > >> > > >> > http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01032005.html > >> > > >> > CounterPunch: > >> > November 27 / 28, 2004 > >> > > >> > Strange Bedfellows > >> > > >> > Greens and Republicans > >> > > >> > By JOSHUA FRANK > >> > > >> > You probably haven't heard of it. It goes by the name of Personal > >> > Rapid Transit (PRT), and it is fast becoming the latest fad of > >> > the Green Party > >and others. > >> > > >> > So what is this PRT anyway? As Aaron Naparstek recently wrote in > >> > NY Press, "PRT is a computerized, driverless mass transit system. > >> > The passenger enters a sleek, four-person pod that is guaranteed > >> > to be waiting at the station, swipes a fare card, punches in a > >> > destination and goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16 > >> > feet above street > >level > >> > with stations every two or three blocks apart. PRT advocates > >> > promise transportation with no wait, no traffic and no smelly > >> > strangers." > >> > > >> > Even David Cobb, the anointed leader of the GP, has touted PRT as > >> > a "Green Technology" and trumped its potential benefits while > >> > "campaigning" in Minnesota last year. Dean Zimmerman a > >> > Minneapolis, Minnesota city councilman and GP member says that > >> > PRT "is going to be a major breakthrough in how people move > >> > around urban centers." Zimmerman has even spoken publicly with > >> > right-wing Republicans to make a case for more public funds to > >> > study the technology. > >> > > >> > Sounds odd. Are Republicans turning green on us? Or is the > >> > national Green Party losing its marbles? Sorry to say, it's the > >> > latter. > >> > > >> > In reality PRT has never worked despite over 30 years of research > >> > and development. Combining the small carrying capacity of a small > >> > car, with the expensive infrastructure of mass transit, PRT > >> > offers the worst of > >both > >> > worlds. Plus, it's the brainchild of Ed Anderson's private > >> > corporation > >Taxi > >> > 2000, who has already made a bundle of cash by convincing city > >> > and state governments that it is in their best interest to hand > >> > over phat > >research checks. > >> > > >> > Although Los Angeles and Santa Cruz California have voted down > >> > proposals to allocate money to study the futuristic transit > >> > system, New Jersey, which has already appropriated $75,000 to > >> > PRT, plans to up that by $100,000 this coming year. While out in > >> > Minneapolis and Duluth, Greens and others are hoping their > >> > government will pony up the needed > >cash to go through with the PRT study. > >> > > >> > Despite the past failures of PRT, hopes among its boosters remain > >> > high. Perhaps their hopes aren't for a green public transit > >> > system; rather > >they > >> > hope PRT can continue to swindle even more loot out of government > >accounts. > >> > > >> > "PRT is really a stalking horse for the pro-highway, anti transit > >lobby," > >> > claims Ken Avidor who has kept a watchful eye on PRT in his home > >> > state on Minnesota. "It is supported by highway engineering > >> > firms, right-wing Republicans like [Minnesota] State Senator > >> > Michele Bachmann and Tom > >Delay." > >> > > >> > This new marriage surely makes for strange bedfellows, as Greens > >> > and Republicans seem to see eye to eye on the PRT boondoggle. > >> > Plus, Greens should know the history of those they are jumping > >> > into bed with. > >> > > >> > The state of Illinois and Raytheon, the maker of "Bunker Buster" > >> > bombs, Tomahawk, Patriot missiles, and other assorted weaponry -- > >> > has invested over $38 million to study PRT in the Chicago metro > >> > area. > >> > > >> > "Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major > >> > scam," writes Naparstek in NY Press. "In Minneapolis, Cincinnati, > >> > Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere, PRT has burned through tens of > >> > millions of dollars of public and private investment. The only > >> > tangible result has > >been > >> > to clear the way for highway construction and make legitimate > >> > mass transit projects more difficult to build. In at least a few > >> > cases, after > >finally > >> > running PRT out of town, citizens learned that the public > >> > officials most enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes in the > >> > companies developing > >it." > >> > > >> > Joshua Frank is the author of the forthcoming book, Left Out!: > >> > How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, to be released in > >> > early 2005 by Common Courage Press. He can be reached at: > >> > frank_joshua@hotmail.com > >> > > >> > > > > -- > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > *************************************************** I-ce = Interface for Cycling Expertise New adress: Trans 3 3512 JJ Utrecht The Netherlands tel: +31 30 230 4521 fax: +31 30 231 2384 email: i-ce@cycling.nl www.cycling.nl *************************************************** From etts at indigo.ie Thu Jan 6 19:47:47 2005 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:47:47 -0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Yellow Brick Road, maybe, but what was behind the Wizard's screen ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alan, I visited the ULTra test track in Cardiff in late-2003, listened to the presentation with an open mind, and had a ride in the cars. I wasn't impressed by either the seating or ride comfort, or by the general speed. For the life of me, I cannot understand why any driver would prefer to use one of these rather than to drive their own car, unless conditions for car use were made either intolerable or unaffordable. (Perhaps as a short shuttle within a closed complex, but not for "real" trips). For passengers, the comfort of GOOD bus services is far superior. (Of course, if the real objective is insulation from other human beings, well I just don't have an answer for that). Modest investments in bus services and priority within traffic would do infinitely more for mobility and market share than any investment in PRT. The huge strides made in Demand Responsive / Flexible Transport show that it can provide the complementary mobility for both irregular trips and for special needs users. Also, I find far too many gaps in their logic, especially when they tout it as an "anywhere to anywhere" system. Has anyone seriously thought just how much system is needed to connect "everywhere" to "every other where" ? We currently have a road system that offers that total level of connectivity - a common infrastructure that can be used by freight vehicles, buses, cars, cyclists, pedestrians and animal traffic. As so many people on this site keep on saying, our road system is failing because of the unrestricted growth of a single mode - the private car - without regard for the other users or more efficient means of providing mobility. We need to revitalise and reposition the system that actually exists in our cities and villages, and which impacts all 6 billion plus of us in our daily lives. Many people on Sustrans and elsewhere, including Eric Britton, are trying to map out this complex web, understand the linkages, and find the equally complex set of solutions to this. Until this most recent debate, I have remained somewhere between uninterested and apathetic about PRT, I guess on the grounds that only a city with more money than sense would invest in it. That rules out just about everywhere that I live and work (on the lack of money grounds, rather than sense!). However, if I thought it was going to divert a single cent or a minute of attention from the struggle for better mobility, then I would rapidly take a position. A campaigning one. Very strongly. Against. With best wishes, Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd., Ireland. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org]On Behalf Of Alan Howes Sent: 06 January 2005 09:36 To: > Subject: [sustran] Re: Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT I'm not familiar with this Rotterdam example - but my suspicion is that it is not a "true" PRT. The PRT system I am most familiar with is ULTra (see http://www.atsltd.co.uk/); the key characteristics of this system are that it is a "spider web" network , not a single line, and that users are offered a direct, non-stop transit from any stop on the network to any other stop - in theory with no wait time. ULTra uses battery-powered, rubber-tyred and electronically guided vehicles carrying up to 4 people on a (probably) elevated guideway. NB - neither I nor my employer has a financial stake in ULTra, nor any other PRT system! :-) But I do believe it's a concept whose time will come. Alan -- Alan Howes Associate Transport Planner Colin Buchanan 4 St Colme Street Edinburgh EH3 6AA Scotland email: alan.howes@cbuchanan.co.uk tel: (0)131 240 2892 (direct) (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard) (0)7952 464335 (mobile) fax: (0)131 220 0232 www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/ _______________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email. Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of CBP, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business. We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. _______________________________ >>> 06/01/05 08:21:00 >>> I know of an example where it is working (Rotterdam, it is called automated people mover). It is not fast (maximum waiting time 10 minutes). It is not near the city centre, so you are right about the low densities. It connects a metrostation with a new business park. On 5 Jan 2005 at 22:21, Alan P Howes wrote: > So who was plagiarising who here? > > Problem is with 'merkins, they also have to be so polemical about > anything. > > I'm rather more sanguine about PRT - I reckon we will see a few > successful implementations in the next ten years, in fairly specific > circumstances where development densities are low and there is no > strong CBD. > > On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:05:32 -0500, "Eric Bruun" > wrote to "Sierra Club Forum on > Transportation Issues" , > , : > > >> > PTP Digest 2005/01/03-A = CONTENTS > > > >> > * NJ's PRT 'Gadgetbahn' is a boondoggle > >> > New York Press Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004 > > =PTP==================================================== > >> > > >> > http://www.nypress.com/17/52/pagetwo/newshole8.cfm > >> > > >> > New York Press > >> > Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004 > >> > > >> > Gadgetbahn > > > >> > A few weeks ago, the state of New Jersey appropriated $75,000 to > >> > study the development of a personal rapid transit system for Long > >> > Branch, a shore town just south of New York City. If PRT projects > >> > elsewhere are a sign of things to come, it's the beginning of an > >> > epic boondoggle. > >> > > >> > As described by its promoters, PRT is a computerized, driverless > >> > mass transit system. The passenger enters a sleek, four-person > >> > pod that is guaranteed to be waiting at the station, swipes a > >> > fare card, punches in > >a > >> > destination and goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16 > >> > feet above street level with stations every two or three blocks > >> > apart. PRT advocates promise transportation with no wait, no > >> > traffic and no smelly strangers. > >> > > >> > In theory. In practice PRT has never worked anywhere despite 30 > >> > years of study and development. Combining the small carrying > >> > capacity of an automobile with the expensive infrastructure of > >> > mass transit, PRT offers the worst of both worlds. If you want to > >> > see what it looks like, watch > >The > >> > Incredibles. In the movie, the evil villain's henchmen travel > >> > about > >their > >> > volcanic- island lair in pods that look remarkably similar to the > >> > system SkyWeb Express is selling to New Jersey. > >> > > >> > It's fitting that a cartoon villain should choose PRT as his ride > >> > of > >choice. > >> > Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major scam. > >> > In Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere, PRT > >> > has burned through tens of millions of dollars of public and > >> > private investment. > >The > >> > only tangible result has been to clear the way for highway > >> > construction and make legitimate mass transit projects more > >> > difficult to build. In at > >least > >> > a few cases, after finally running PRT out of town, citizens > >> > learned > >that the > >> > public officials most enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes > >> > in the > >companies developing it. > >> > > >> > There are signs that all of this is now underway across the > >> > river. PRT advocates expect to wring another $1,000,000 out of > >> > the New Jersey legislatures shortly. They dream of a pod network > >> > stretching from > >Atlantic > >> > City to the misbegotten Xanadu sports and entertainment complex > >> > at the > >Meadowlands. > >> > > >> > The PRT craze is a clear sign that an endgame is underway. > >> > Suburban Americans are waking up to the fact that their car-based > >> > lifestyle is > >broken > >> > and unsustainable. They are starting to look for solutions, but > >> > their > >vision > >> > is limited by an "autonomist" ideology that places personal > >> > convenience above all else, no matter what the cost. Rather than > >> > looking at transportation options that we know work (PRT gurus > >> > derisively refer to the train as a "19th-century technology"), > >> > Americans are looking for a high-tech miracle to save them from > >> > the rough road that is so clearly > >ahead. PRT ain't it. > >> > > >> > Volume 17, Issue 52 > >> > > >=PTP=================================================== > >> > > >> > http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01032005.html > >> > > >> > CounterPunch: > >> > November 27 / 28, 2004 > >> > > >> > Strange Bedfellows > >> > > >> > Greens and Republicans > >> > > >> > By JOSHUA FRANK > >> > > >> > You probably haven't heard of it. It goes by the name of Personal > >> > Rapid Transit (PRT), and it is fast becoming the latest fad of > >> > the Green Party > >and others. > >> > > >> > So what is this PRT anyway? As Aaron Naparstek recently wrote in > >> > NY Press, "PRT is a computerized, driverless mass transit system. > >> > The passenger enters a sleek, four-person pod that is guaranteed > >> > to be waiting at the station, swipes a fare card, punches in a > >> > destination and goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16 > >> > feet above street > >level > >> > with stations every two or three blocks apart. PRT advocates > >> > promise transportation with no wait, no traffic and no smelly > >> > strangers." > >> > > >> > Even David Cobb, the anointed leader of the GP, has touted PRT as > >> > a "Green Technology" and trumped its potential benefits while > >> > "campaigning" in Minnesota last year. Dean Zimmerman a > >> > Minneapolis, Minnesota city councilman and GP member says that > >> > PRT "is going to be a major breakthrough in how people move > >> > around urban centers." Zimmerman has even spoken publicly with > >> > right-wing Republicans to make a case for more public funds to > >> > study the technology. > >> > > >> > Sounds odd. Are Republicans turning green on us? Or is the > >> > national Green Party losing its marbles? Sorry to say, it's the > >> > latter. > >> > > >> > In reality PRT has never worked despite over 30 years of research > >> > and development. Combining the small carrying capacity of a small > >> > car, with the expensive infrastructure of mass transit, PRT > >> > offers the worst of > >both > >> > worlds. Plus, it's the brainchild of Ed Anderson's private > >> > corporation > >Taxi > >> > 2000, who has already made a bundle of cash by convincing city > >> > and state governments that it is in their best interest to hand > >> > over phat > >research checks. > >> > > >> > Although Los Angeles and Santa Cruz California have voted down > >> > proposals to allocate money to study the futuristic transit > >> > system, New Jersey, which has already appropriated $75,000 to > >> > PRT, plans to up that by $100,000 this coming year. While out in > >> > Minneapolis and Duluth, Greens and others are hoping their > >> > government will pony up the needed > >cash to go through with the PRT study. > >> > > >> > Despite the past failures of PRT, hopes among its boosters remain > >> > high. Perhaps their hopes aren't for a green public transit > >> > system; rather > >they > >> > hope PRT can continue to swindle even more loot out of government > >accounts. > >> > > >> > "PRT is really a stalking horse for the pro-highway, anti transit > >lobby," > >> > claims Ken Avidor who has kept a watchful eye on PRT in his home > >> > state on Minnesota. "It is supported by highway engineering > >> > firms, right-wing Republicans like [Minnesota] State Senator > >> > Michele Bachmann and Tom > >Delay." > >> > > >> > This new marriage surely makes for strange bedfellows, as Greens > >> > and Republicans seem to see eye to eye on the PRT boondoggle. > >> > Plus, Greens should know the history of those they are jumping > >> > into bed with. > >> > > >> > The state of Illinois and Raytheon, the maker of "Bunker Buster" > >> > bombs, Tomahawk, Patriot missiles, and other assorted weaponry -- > >> > has invested over $38 million to study PRT in the Chicago metro > >> > area. > >> > > >> > "Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major > >> > scam," writes Naparstek in NY Press. "In Minneapolis, Cincinnati, > >> > Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere, PRT has burned through tens of > >> > millions of dollars of public and private investment. The only > >> > tangible result has > >been > >> > to clear the way for highway construction and make legitimate > >> > mass transit projects more difficult to build. In at least a few > >> > cases, after > >finally > >> > running PRT out of town, citizens learned that the public > >> > officials most enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes in the > >> > companies developing > >it." > >> > > >> > Joshua Frank is the author of the forthcoming book, Left Out!: > >> > How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, to be released in > >> > early 2005 by Common Courage Press. He can be reached at: > >> > frank_joshua@hotmail.com > >> > > >> > > > > -- > Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk > http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] > *************************************************** I-ce = Interface for Cycling Expertise New adress: Trans 3 3512 JJ Utrecht The Netherlands tel: +31 30 230 4521 fax: +31 30 231 2384 email: i-ce@cycling.nl www.cycling.nl *************************************************** From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Thu Jan 6 20:00:19 2005 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:00:19 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT Message-ID: <000b01c4f3de$ede120e0$6501a8c0@jazz> Dear Friends, Sorry to poke my big nose into this, but the fact is that I have looked long and hard at this family of systems over the years and I would like at least to point any of you who might be interested into sources where you can find accurate information about actual deployments and plans. The first place to turn in my book is Larry Fabian's diligently maintained Trans21 database has for the last thirty years provided good coverage of these developments which you will find detailed at http://www.airfront.us . He defines his target as APMs, to whit: "An Automated People Mover is a passenger transport system with high levels of electronic intelligence so that vehicles are operated by computers over exclusive guideways without need for attendants. Progressive engineers and planners have worked on APMs since the 1960s, and today over 100 installations operate around the world." He then goes on to identify some 114 working implementatoins at http://www.airfront.us/PDFs/Count04.pdf and a couple of dozen "APM projects underway" (perhaps a bit optimistic that) at http://www.airfront.us/PDFs/ActiveAPMConstruction-2004.pdf Fabian has often noted that the most likely places for deployment of this family of systems are areas where there is a single owner and purpose, which has over the last decades boiled down mainly to airport, leisure center and similar installations. And while he complicates his good list by including a dozen automated metros, these last in any event are in my view far more indicative of what new technology is all about in our chosen area of concern, rather than the Yellow Brick Road thesis (a phrase which, incidentally, I very much wish I had invented in this context). Other sources that can help fill out your information on this subject, if you are still tempted: * Professor Jerry Schneider's Innovative Transportation Technologies Website at http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/ * The Advanced Transportation Technologies e-group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advanced_transportation/ * The Advanced Transit Association (http://advancedtransit.org ) I might note that there is little other than quick peripheral discussion of PRT or its various cousins in the VTPI encyclopedia under "Public Transit Improvements" which to me speaks volumes, at the very least in terms of the preoccupations that the very great majority of us share here. It is my sincere hope that we can now get off the Yellow Brick Road to PRT and back to the very worthy and hugely challenging problems of sustainable development and social justice which are the principal reason for our being here. Eric Britton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050106/ca64aaa9/attachment.html From tara.bartee at dot.state.fl.us Fri Jan 7 00:19:12 2005 From: tara.bartee at dot.state.fl.us (tara.bartee@dot.state.fl.us) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:19:12 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: WorldTransport Forum TRB session: "Transportation and Logistical Challenges Associated with the Tsunami Disaster" In-Reply-To: <001f01c4f3e1$d52b4370$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: I will be at TRB, but had planned to be in another session at the same time as Tsunami session. If no one else can cover it, I am willing to change plans and do a summary for the group, but don't feel competent to do a presentation. If anyone else is able to cover the session, please let me know as soon as possible. I'll be leaving for Washington Saturday morning and won't have e-mail access once I leave. I would encourage others to contact TRB using the link below if able to address the issues of interest to these groups. It looks very much like they are very open to adding presenters. Tara Bartee Public Transit Office FDOT Voice 850-414-4520 FAX 850-414-4508 E-Mail tara.bartee@dot.state.fl.us "EcoPlan, Paris" To 01/06/2005 06:21 cc AM Subject WorldTransport Forum TRB session: Please respond to "Transportation and Logistical WorldTransport@ya Challenges Associated with the hoogroups.com Tsunami Disaster" Dear Colleaugess, I write you with reference to the planned TRB session on Sunday, January 9, at 8:00 p.m to be given over to ?Transportation and Logistical Challenges Associated with the Tsunami Disaster?. (See http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=4530). My question is this? Is there anyone in our groups who will be there who might be wiling to report back to us in summary as to how all this goes? And is there anyone who will be participating and who might be intending to run with some of our ideas on injecting sustainability criteria into the first line of the new rebuilding efforts? And if so, how might this somehow be achieved at more than the usual level of pure rhetoric (AKA the greenwash syndrome) that all too often is what we have when our important topic comes up, if at all. How might we edge into this session and use it to advance our agreed agenda? Since time is so short and we are so very dispersed, it would be good if the feedback on this might be addressed to both of the main fora: sustran-discuss@jca.ax.apc.org and NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com. Eric Britton The New Mobility/World Transport Agenda Consult at: http://NewMobiity.org To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldTransport/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. From gigi_goreng at hotmail.com Fri Jan 7 03:15:52 2005 From: gigi_goreng at hotmail.com (ria hutabarat) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:15:52 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: WorldTransport Forum TRB session: "Transportation andLogistical Challenges Associated with the Tsunami Disaster" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050106/51007092/attachment.html From gigi_goreng at hotmail.com Fri Jan 7 03:15:52 2005 From: gigi_goreng at hotmail.com (ria hutabarat) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:15:52 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: WorldTransport Forum TRB session: "Transportation andLogistical Challenges Associated with the Tsunami Disaster" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050106/51007092/attachment-0001.html From alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk Fri Jan 7 05:22:20 2005 From: alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk (Alan P Howes) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:22:20 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Yellow Brick Road, maybe, but what was behind the Wizard's screen ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3e7rt0libdfskfm47bm0sjp5v6tgoabluv@4ax.com> I quite agree that PRT has nothing at all to do with social justice, and contributes little to sustainable development - assuming that by referring to the latter, we are talking about "developing countries". I can't really think of any developing countries where PRT would be appropriate, so perhaps it's off-topic here - Singapore or KL could perhaps be candidates, but from what I know of those places the densities are probably not appropriate. And Brendan has the advantage on me in having ridden the Cardiff test track for ULTra - my turn may come! But while not wishing to be polemical, and notwithstanding any current failings in ULTra, I still think PRT potentially has something to contribute to reducing local emissions, global energy use and land take in transport. The application we are working on at present - I can't really name the location without clearance from various people, but have a guess! - is a rich city in the Middle East, where PRT would substitute for short car trips - no more than 3-5 km. People will not walk such distances there for reasons of climate. PRT can go into buildings in a way that PT cannot. And car use will be limited by lack of space for parking - in fact, one use of PRT (as well as feeding into a rail system) would be to link to car parks. IMO the function of feeding into a line-haul rail transit system in low-density areas is a key role for PRT - we may not like it, but there are lots of people out there who will use rail - and probably PRT - but will not use bus. (After tonight's trip home I'm not too struck on rail either, but that's a different story ...) Cheers, Alan On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:47:47 -0000, "Brendan Finn" wrote to "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" : >Alan, > >I visited the ULTra test track in Cardiff in late-2003, listened to the >presentation with an open mind, and had a ride in the cars. I wasn't >impressed by either the seating or ride comfort, or by the general speed. > >For the life of me, I cannot understand why any driver would prefer to use >one of these rather than to drive their own car, unless conditions for car >use were made either intolerable or unaffordable. (Perhaps as a short >shuttle within a closed complex, but not for "real" trips). > >For passengers, the comfort of GOOD bus services is far superior. (Of >course, if the real objective is insulation from other human beings, well I >just don't have an answer for that). Modest investments in bus services and >priority within traffic would do infinitely more for mobility and market >share than any investment in PRT. The huge strides made in Demand Responsive >/ Flexible Transport show that it can provide the complementary mobility for >both irregular trips and for special needs users. > >Also, I find far too many gaps in their logic, especially when they tout it >as an "anywhere to anywhere" system. Has anyone seriously thought just how >much system is needed to connect "everywhere" to "every other where" ? > >We currently have a road system that offers that total level of >connectivity - a common infrastructure that can be used by freight vehicles, >buses, cars, cyclists, pedestrians and animal traffic. As so many people on >this site keep on saying, our road system is failing because of the >unrestricted growth of a single mode - the private car - without regard for >the other users or more efficient means of providing mobility. > >We need to revitalise and reposition the system that actually exists in our >cities and villages, and which impacts all 6 billion plus of us in our daily >lives. Many people on Sustrans and elsewhere, including Eric Britton, are >trying to map out this complex web, understand the linkages, and find the >equally complex set of solutions to this. > >Until this most recent debate, I have remained somewhere between >uninterested and apathetic about PRT, I guess on the grounds that only a >city with more money than sense would invest in it. That rules out just >about everywhere that I live and work (on the lack of money grounds, rather >than sense!). However, if I thought it was going to divert a single cent or >a minute of attention from the struggle for better mobility, then I would >rapidly take a position. A campaigning one. Very strongly. Against. > >With best wishes, > > >Brendan Finn, >ETTS Ltd., Ireland. > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org >[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie@list.jca.apc.org]On Behalf Of >Alan Howes >Sent: 06 January 2005 09:36 >To: > >Subject: [sustran] Re: Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT > >I'm not familiar with this Rotterdam example - but my suspicion is that it >is not a "true" PRT. The PRT system I am most familiar with is ULTra (see >http://www.atsltd.co.uk/); the key characteristics of this system are that >it is a "spider web" network , not a single line, and that users are >offered a direct, non-stop transit from any stop on the network to any other >stop - in theory with no wait time. ULTra uses battery-powered, >rubber-tyred and electronically guided vehicles carrying up to 4 people on a >(probably) elevated guideway. > >NB - neither I nor my employer has a financial stake in ULTra, nor any other >PRT system! :-) But I do believe it's a concept whose time will come. > >Alan -- Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] From alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk Fri Jan 7 05:58:19 2005 From: alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk (Alan P Howes) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:58:19 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT In-Reply-To: <000b01c4f3de$ede120e0$6501a8c0@jazz> References: <000b01c4f3de$ede120e0$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: All noted - and I haven't had chance to follow Eric's links - but while PRT could probably be classed as APM, by no means all APMs are PRT. PRT has to be at very least few to many, and ideally many to many. Most APMs that I know of - including, I guess, all the ones that have actually been implemented - are few to few, if not one to one (e.g. APMs at airports). Can anyone prove me wrong? Alan On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:00:19 +0100, "EcoPlan, Paris" wrote to "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'" : >Dear Friends, > > > >Sorry to poke my big nose into this, but the fact is that I have looked long >and hard at this family of systems over the years and I would like at least >to point any of you who might be interested into sources where you can find >accurate information about actual deployments and plans. > > > >The first place to turn in my book is Larry Fabian's diligently maintained >Trans21 database has for the last thirty years provided good coverage of >these developments which you will find detailed at http://www.airfront.us > . He defines his target as APMs, to whit: "An >Automated People Mover is a passenger transport system with high levels of >electronic intelligence so that vehicles are operated by computers over >exclusive guideways without need for attendants. Progressive engineers and >planners have worked on APMs since the 1960s, and today over 100 >installations operate around the world." He then goes on to identify some >114 working implementatoins at http://www.airfront.us/PDFs/Count04.pdf and >a couple of dozen "APM projects underway" (perhaps a bit optimistic that) at >http://www.airfront.us/PDFs/ActiveAPMConstruction-2004.pdf > > > >Fabian has often noted that the most likely places for deployment of this >family of systems are areas where there is a single owner and purpose, which >has over the last decades boiled down mainly to airport, leisure center and >similar installations. And while he complicates his good list by including a >dozen automated metros, these last in any event are in my view far more >indicative of what new technology is all about in our chosen area of >concern, rather than the Yellow Brick Road thesis (a phrase which, >incidentally, I very much wish I had invented in this context). > > > >Other sources that can help fill out your information on this subject, if >you are still tempted: > > > >* Professor Jerry Schneider's Innovative Transportation Technologies >Website at http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/ > >* The Advanced Transportation Technologies e-group at >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advanced_transportation/ > >* The Advanced Transit Association (http://advancedtransit.org > ) > > > >I might note that there is little other than quick peripheral discussion of >PRT or its various cousins in the VTPI encyclopedia under "Public Transit >Improvements" which to me speaks volumes, at the very least in terms of the >preoccupations that the very great majority of us share here. > > > >It is my sincere hope that we can now get off the Yellow Brick Road to PRT >and back to the very worthy and hugely challenging problems of sustainable >development and social justice which are the principal reason for our being >here. > > > >Eric Britton -- Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland alan@ourpeagreenboat.co.uk http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/ [Needs Updating!] From et3 at et3.com Fri Jan 7 09:53:28 2005 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 19:53:28 -0500 Subject: [sustran] FW: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List Message-ID: <20050107005403.A50C02D5BD@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> This message from Jack Slade should be about as clear as it gets. Next time the "new mobility" folk jet to a conference; I hope they reflect on: How their trip would be progressing if carried out by muscle, sail, and rail; and how they would get along without any running water (transported to them via pipes - er tubes); and electricity (transported to them by coal train, and wires; 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jack Slade [mailto:skytrek_org@rogers.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:29 PM > To: A/T Policy > Subject: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List > > The following is a copy of the message I sent to Eric Britton. I am not > on his list, so I don't really care how he takes it. > > Jack Slade > > --! > -Original > Message-----From: Eric Britton > [CLIP] > >* I have decided (unless pushed to the contrary) to omit from > this > >list all people with strong bureaucratic, institutional and economic > ties > >and interests, and specifically proponents of unproven technologies > and > >major infrastructure developments that are not fully and assiduously > cross- > >checked with the full range of sustainability criteria). > (COPY) > Eric: This message from you was posted on our Transit-Policy chatline. I > am not sure what you classify as ?sustainable?. I sincerely hope you don?t > mean the kind of sustainable transport that I grew up with. Just in case, > let me describe it to you. > > Quite a few of the people in my home town has horses, and carts or wagons. > There were no cars. Carfree City? There were a couple of small trucks that > brought in groceries and coal. A few of us had bicycles when we got older, > but not to ride to work,! > because > the nearest factory was 82 miles away. Without transport for raw > materials and manufactured goods factories cannot exist. > > While you are carrying out your project to improve the future, I think you > should keep this in mind. Future transport has a requirement much more > important than just moving people, because without it you will not have a > job to ride to. Another fact is that un-maintained roads begin to revert > back to nature after 10 years, and they are maintained, currently, by the > tax on gasoline, which is going to dry up as portable fuel becomes > scarcer. A fifteen mile pedal on a gravel road just to visit Aunt Mary is > not my idea of a pleasant Sunday afternoon outing. > > You are eliminating all of the people who are trying to solve the full > transportation problems of the future from your list. You are going to be > left with the people who hav a lot in common with the people who said > heavier than air flight was impossible (British Royal Society) and the > gentleman who wanted to close the patent office he worked in, because > ?everything that could possibly be invented has already been invented?. > > Somebody once said that if you are not part of the solu! > tion you > are part of the problem. I am not a member of your list, and please don?t > try to enroll me. > Jack Slade www.skytrek2000.org > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online , and is > believed to be clean. From et3 at et3.com Fri Jan 7 10:51:05 2005 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:51:05 -0500 Subject: [sustran] FW: [atraPolicy] FW: Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT Message-ID: <20050107015136.D6E3F2D7F3@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Parsons-Brinckerhoff was also a consultant for the FHSRA (florida high speed rail authority). More than $12M was spent for PB and other firms to: do a couple traffic surveys (using college students and police officers); download current high-altitude photos; re-package the I-4 alignment data with HSR overlays (the I-4 data was paid for and "owned" by FDOT); freshen up the 1-4 EIS and a few other paper shuffling and legal tasks. The alignment data was considered one of the most "labors intensive". The HSR overlays was therefore a nice "gift" to the two proposers offering HSR technology. (It took one CAD operator less than a week to modify the i-4 CAD files with ETT overlays). The HSR proposals both claimed "millions" were spent to make their proposals; if so, I would like to see it exposed where the millions actually went! 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave and Dorsa [mailto:davndors@cruzio.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:36 PM > To: policy@advancedtransit.org > Subject: Re: [atraPolicy] FW: [sustran] Following the Yellow Brick Road to > PRT > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daryl Oster" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 12:54 PM > Subject: [atraPolicy] FW: [sustran] Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT > - > Fellow Co-conspirators : > This stuff is a mix of epithets, exaggerations and outright untruths. I > will > respond only to the issues about which I know something. At Sea-tac, > Cincinnati, and St. Louis Taxi-2000 made legitimate presentations and were > chosen as the peoples' choice. They then were subjected to what we in > santa > Cruz called a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Here they consisted of > advocates of buses largely - running the County Metro System and the > University Buses that shuttled students and faculty to class. > The consultant told us that the only technique that would decrease > congestion was PRT, and he was summarily fired. The TAC took care of the > rest. The consultants of the other three were Parsons-Brinckerhoff, and I > quote Bob Brodbeck,"Unfortunately, our MPO and Parsons-Brinckerhoff [PB] > didn't release their ridership estimates until one week before the final > meeting at which the > vote was taken [which many of us felt was done on purpose], which even > though PB was not completely accurate in modeling the T2 Sky Loop system, > it "won the ridership" hands down, showing from 2.4 to 4.6 times as many > total riders per day as the Shuttle bus service and Streetcar [with > traffic > signal management no less] and from 5.9 to 11.7 times as many new daily > riders." This study might have cost a $1m but it didn't go for PRT. > PB also scotched Sea-Tac, and St. Louis. I have another quote that I > forward to any group looking for an unbiased consultant, > "9/10/02 NEW INVESTOR IN SR 125 TOLL ROAD PROJECT > Parson Brinkerhoff signed an agreement today to sell its equity in > the > SR 125 toll road project in San Diego to the MacQuarrie infrastructure > Group, an international investor in toll roads based in Australia. > MacQuarrie is acquiring California Transportation Ventures, which PB > owns in partnership with the French firm, Egie Projects. CTV has performed > all project development work including environmental permitting and > preliminary design of the proposed h8ghway, since signing the franchise > with > the State of California in 1991 to develop, finance, construct, and > operate > the toll road. SR 125 is one of four privatization demonstration projects > authorized by the California legislature in 1990. The legislation > empowered > Caltrans to retain private entities to develop transportation facilities > in > behalf of the state. > Through its management consultant group, PBConsult, Parson > Brinckerhoff > will remain involved with MacQuarrie in the continued development and > implementation of the project." > Finally the Raytheon debacle. A contract was signed giving Raytheon > permission to build to Taxi 2000 specifications. Like all military > contractors, they believed their engineers knew best, so they re-designed > Taxi-2000 to carry four rather than three passengers. This made the cabs > heavier requiring a heavier, larger guideway. The cabs were longer which > required longer stations. The economy was lost, and after both Raytheon > and > Rosemont split the $40m bill and quit. PRT didn't squander that money. > 'nff said, I think PRT will be all it's cracked up to be. Even > Morgantown after Boeing redesigned it has run very nicely for about forty > years. > Fight on, > Dave Walworth > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > > > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf > Of > > > Eric Bruun > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 6:06 PM > > > To: Sierra Club Forum on Transportation Issues; sustran- > > > discuss@jca.ax.apc.org; hgstransport@yahoogroups.com > > > Cc: Matoff, Tom; jschumann; Peter G. Furth; ross.p.kelvin@state.or.us; > > > MARYON.John@urban-transport.com; Vukan Vuchic; nhmw@mit.edu; Ralph > Jenne; > > > ewisniewski@broward.org; Rogerboldt@aol.com; Jeff Casello; > > > kikuchi@ce.udel.edu; Hemily, Brendon; pucher@rci.rutgers.edu; Garrity, > > > Mark; Christopher Puchalsky > > > Subject: [sustran] Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT > > > > > > > > PTP Digest 2005/01/03-A = CONTENTS > > > > > > > > * NJ's PRT 'Gadgetbahn' is a boondoggle > > > > > New York Press Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004 > > > =PTP==================================================== > > > > > > > > > > http://www.nypress.com/17/52/pagetwo/newshole8.cfm > > > > > > > > > > New York Press > > > > > Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004 > > > > > > > > > > Gadgetbahn > > > > > > > > A few weeks ago, the state of New Jersey appropriated $75,000 to > study > > > > > the development of a personal rapid transit system for Long > Branch, > a > > > > > shore town just south of New York City. If PRT projects elsewhere > are > > > a > > > > > sign of things to come, it's the beginning of an epic boondoggle. > > > > > > > > > > As described by its promoters, PRT is a computerized, driverless > mass > > > > > transit system. The passenger enters a sleek, four-person pod that > is > > > > > guaranteed to be waiting at the station, swipes a fare card, > punches > > > in > > > a > > > > > destination and goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16 > feet > > > > > above street level with stations every two or three blocks apart. > PRT > > > > > advocates promise transportation with no wait, no traffic and no > > > smelly > > > > > strangers. > > > > > > > > > > In theory. In practice PRT has never worked anywhere despite 30 > years > > > of > > > > > study and development. Combining the small carrying capacity of an > > > > > automobile with the expensive infrastructure of mass transit, PRT > > > offers > > > > > the worst of both worlds. If you want to see what it looks like, > watch > > > The > > > > > Incredibles. In the movie, the evil villain's henchmen travel > about > > > their > > > > > volcanic- island lair in pods that look remarkably similar to the > > > system > > > > > SkyWeb Express is selling to New Jersey. > > > > > > > > > > It's fitting that a cartoon villain should choose PRT as his ride > of > > > choice. > > > > > Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major scam. > In > > > > > Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere, PRT has > > > burned > > > > > through tens of millions of dollars of public and private > investment. > > > The > > > > > only tangible result has been to clear the way for highway > > > construction > > > > > and make legitimate mass transit projects more difficult to build. > In > > > at > > > least > > > > > a few cases, after finally running PRT out of town, citizens > learned > > > that the > > > > > public officials most enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes > in > > > the > > > companies developing it. > > > > > > > > > > There are signs that all of this is now underway across the river. > PRT > > > > > advocates expect to wring another $1,000,000 out of the New Jersey > > > > > legislatures shortly. They dream of a pod network stretching from > > > Atlantic > > > > > City to the misbegotten Xanadu sports and entertainment complex at > the > > > Meadowlands. > > > > > > > > > > The PRT craze is a clear sign that an endgame is underway. > Suburban > > > > > Americans are waking up to the fact that their car-based lifestyle > is > > > broken > > > > > and unsustainable. They are starting to look for solutions, but > their > > > vision > > > > > is limited by an "autonomist" ideology that places personal > > > convenience > > > > > above all else, no matter what the cost. Rather than looking at > > > > > transportation options that we know work (PRT gurus derisively > refer > > > to > > > > > the train as a "19th-century technology"), Americans are looking > for > a > > > > > high-tech miracle to save them from the rough road that is so > clearly > > > ahead. PRT ain't it. > > > > > > > > > > Volume 17, Issue 52 > > > > > > > > =PTP=================================================== > > > > > > > > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01032005.html > > > > > > > > > > CounterPunch: > > > > > November 27 / 28, 2004 > > > > > > > > > > Strange Bedfellows > > > > > > > > > > Greens and Republicans > > > > > > > > > > By JOSHUA FRANK > > > > > > > > > > You probably haven't heard of it. It goes by the name of Personal > > > Rapid > > > > > Transit (PRT), and it is fast becoming the latest fad of the Green > > > Party > > > and others. > > > > > > > > > > So what is this PRT anyway? As Aaron Naparstek recently wrote in > NY > > > > > Press, "PRT is a computerized, driverless mass transit system. The > > > > > passenger enters a sleek, four-person pod that is guaranteed to be > > > > > waiting at the station, swipes a fare card, punches in a > destination > > > and > > > > > goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16 feet above > street > > > level > > > > > with stations every two or three blocks apart. PRT advocates > promise > > > > > transportation with no wait, no traffic and no smelly strangers." > > > > > > > > > > Even David Cobb, the anointed leader of the GP, has touted PRT as > a > > > > > "Green Technology" and trumped its potential benefits while > > > > > "campaigning" in Minnesota last year. Dean Zimmerman a > Minneapolis, > > > > > Minnesota city councilman and GP member says that PRT "is going to > be > > > > > a major breakthrough in how people move around urban centers." > > > > > Zimmerman has even spoken publicly with right-wing Republicans to > > > > > make a case for more public funds to study the technology. > > > > > > > > > > Sounds odd. Are Republicans turning green on us? Or is the > national > > > > > Green Party losing its marbles? Sorry to say, it's the latter. > > > > > > > > > > In reality PRT has never worked despite over 30 years of research > and > > > > > development. Combining the small carrying capacity of a small car, > > > with > > > > > the expensive infrastructure of mass transit, PRT offers the worst > of > > > both > > > > > worlds. Plus, it's the brainchild of Ed Anderson's private > corporation > > > Taxi > > > > > 2000, who has already made a bundle of cash by convincing city and > > > > > state governments that it is in their best interest to hand over > phat > > > research checks. > > > > > > > > > > Although Los Angeles and Santa Cruz California have voted down > > > > > proposals to allocate money to study the futuristic transit > system, > > > New > > > > > Jersey, which has already appropriated $75,000 to PRT, plans to up > > > that > > > > > by $100,000 this coming year. While out in Minneapolis and Duluth, > > > > > Greens and others are hoping their government will pony up the > needed > > > cash to go through with the PRT study. > > > > > > > > > > Despite the past failures of PRT, hopes among its boosters remain > > > high. > > > > > Perhaps their hopes aren't for a green public transit system; > rather > > > they > > > > > hope PRT can continue to swindle even more loot out of government > > > accounts. > > > > > > > > > > "PRT is really a stalking horse for the pro-highway, anti transit > > > lobby," > > > > > claims Ken Avidor who has kept a watchful eye on PRT in his home > state > > > > > on Minnesota. "It is supported by highway engineering firms, > right- > > > wing > > > > > Republicans like [Minnesota] State Senator Michele Bachmann and > Tom > > > Delay." > > > > > > > > > > This new marriage surely makes for strange bedfellows, as Greens > and > > > > > Republicans seem to see eye to eye on the PRT boondoggle. Plus, > > > > > Greens should know the history of those they are jumping into bed > > > with. > > > > > > > > > > The state of Illinois and Raytheon, the maker of "Bunker Buster" > > > bombs, > > > > > Tomahawk, Patriot missiles, and other assorted weaponry -- has > > > invested > > > > > over $38 million to study PRT in the Chicago metro area. > > > > > > > > > > "Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major > scam," > > > > > writes Naparstek in NY Press. "In Minneapolis, Cincinnati, > Seattle, > > > > > Chicago and elsewhere, PRT has burned through tens of millions of > > > > > dollars of public and private investment. The only tangible result > has > > > been > > > > > to clear the way for highway construction and make legitimate mass > > > > > transit projects more difficult to build. In at least a few cases, > > > after > > > finally > > > > > running PRT out of town, citizens learned that the public > officials > > > most > > > > > enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes in the companies > > > developing > > > it." > > > > > > > > > > Joshua Frank is the author of the forthcoming book, Left Out!: How > > > > > Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, to be released in early > 2005 > > > by > > > > > Common Courage Press. He can be reached at: > > > > > frank_joshua@hotmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > > > believed to be clean. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is > believed to be clean. > From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Fri Jan 7 16:36:04 2005 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 08:36:04 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT (And hoping that we can now make it a yellow brick wall) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c4f48b$971231c0$6501a8c0@jazz> Oh dear. I was hoping that by now there was a strong consensus that the PRT was, as Alan Howes so rightly puts it: "so perhaps it's off-topic here". No doubt. Otherwise, and in the hope that we can now put this behind us once and for all, here I snip from his two last messages on this clear off-topic: 1. PRT has to be at very least few to many, and ideally many to many. Most APMs that I know of - including, I guess, all the ones that have actually been implemented - are few to few, if not one to one (e.g. APMs at airports). Can anyone prove me wrong? The PRT et al topology is so very well charted in the literature that there is little left to argue about. Basically the clue is size of cabin, level of targeted service (direct O/D without changes, they hope) and density of the service grid. PRT going back to when we first began to investigate it seriously, back in the late sixties - and indeed we were in a position to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars on an off over a period of some twenty years in traveling around to the main sites and sources, talking to these guys, riding their systems and various prototypes as available, kicking their tires (that's a joke), and then talking it over with their eventual customers and financial base on the other end - was always the high ambition end of the spectrum, and as the various systems either bit the dust for whatever reasons or remained on the drawing board or in the minds of their beholder. Thus when it became clear by the early-mid seventies that this was not going to go anywhere, there was a general move "down market", call it GRT, APM or what have you - and it was these simpler systems that began to see the light of day. But always in special places and in very limited numbers. If you want an enthusiast version of how this worked out check out the indomitable Edward Anderson who has been around in this even longer (and deeper) that I have, who provides a summary of his views at http://advancedtransit.org/doc.aspx?id=1025 - "Some Lessons from the History of Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)". And caveat emptor. Not enough for you yet. Well then I invite you to hop over to http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/PRT/ and Professor Schneider will give you his in depth views. Still hungry for more. Well you will surely want to check out the PRT Ongoing Debate Page at http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/debate.htm And now if you are getting hot and want some cold water, check out what the admirable Vukan Vuchic has to say in his article "PRT: An Unrealistic System" at http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/vuchic1.htm> (Can I go home now Mom?) 2. . . . a rich city in the Middle East, where PRT would substitute for . . . Oh dear. Let them have it. Wonderful idea. I wish I had thought of it. I am sure that the environment movement is very strong in this unnamed candidate city, and they will be delighted with the results. Duh. May we get back to work now? But if anyone needs more background and links on this, please get to me privately so as not to take our time with this, as Alan has told us, off-topic topic. ;-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050107/19aa264c/attachment.html From ab at transcience.freeserve.co.uk Fri Jan 7 00:59:30 2005 From: ab at transcience.freeserve.co.uk (Anzir Boodoo) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:59:30 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: WorldTransport Forum TRB session: "Transportation and Logistical Challenges Associated with the Tsunami Disaster" In-Reply-To: <001f01c4f3e1$d52b4370$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: Eric, On Thursday, Jan 6, 2005, at 11:21 Europe/London, EcoPlan, Paris wrote: > I write you with reference to the planned TRB session onSunday, > January 9, at8:00 p.mto be given over to ?Transportation and > Logistical Challenges Associated with the Tsunami Disaster?.? (See > http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=4530). > > My question is this? Is there anyone in our groups who will be there > who might be wiling to report back to us in summary as to how all this > goes?? And is there anyone who will be participating and who might be > intending to run with some of our ideas on injecting sustainability > criteria into the first line of the new rebuilding efforts?? And if > so, how might this somehow be achieved at more than the usual level of > pure rhetoric (AKA the greenwash syndrome) that all too often is what > we have when our important topic comes up, if at all. Not to mention that we should try to avoid either falling into the trap of, or being accused of being culturally imperialist in saying solutions need to be sustainable. For a lot of people, sustainable solutions are seen as the polar opposite of technological advancement, and there are elements in the discourses of "Appropriate" or "Intermediate" Technology that smack of wanting to keep certain parts of the world backwards. This view has to be countered, and indeed some of the solutions we can collectively use in the rebuilding will be high tech (perhaps with solar energy playing a big part), while many will be low tech. It is important to let people know that we should be teaching people in those areas the lessons we have learnt (if we have learnt anything, that is). -- Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF From ccordero at amauta.rcp.net.pe Sat Jan 8 05:58:01 2005 From: ccordero at amauta.rcp.net.pe (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Carlos_Cordero_Vel=E1squez?=) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:58:01 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List References: <20050107005403.A50C02D5BD@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <002301c4f4fb$b086a800$50b601c8@pentiumiii> The arguments outlined in the previos messages sound a bit childish, since the authors pretends a kind of guilty from the people involved with sustainable transportation while using a plane or getting electricity. I hope the authors do not not feel guilty every time they walk or use a bicycle. Following the logic of the argument one could say, well, what about all the walking involved in building the technologies and services around the plane? But besides futilities, there is also in these messages the strong line of "the future" vs "the past" which are not sustained in transportation history or even in the way technology develops: For instance the bicycle and cars can not be compared as old and new technologies, since both are contemporary technologies, not only in the sense that both showed up almost the same historical moment, but also since there are a strong relationship between both: the motorized car took the form of the bicycle at the beginning of this development (in fact the "first car" as it is shown in the Mercedes Benz Museum in Sttutgart is a motorcycle). The other way around, Bicycles "paved" the way to cars since the first ways used for bikes allowed a better circulation of cars in Europe. The point is that there is no line which divides past and future when we talk about contemporary and modern means of transport, in fact "modern" in the latin sense of the word, means "the way or the form of today" So there is no modernity if we do not understand this basic starting point. Any new technology does not develop isolated, they always need others (no matter how old or new they are) and this situation has an influence in the way the technology develops. We can regard computers as a very new technology, but we write on them in the same way developed by the type writer machine, with a keyboard organized in a way create by the type writer machine. So computer also share new and old technologies inside. In that context I found very futil the terminology about "the stone age" and we should concentrate more in the way the technologies are mixed, the purpose of this technologies and the social context they are applied. Regards, Carlos ----- Original Messa ge ----- From: "Daryl Oster" To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" ; Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:53 PM Subject: [sustran] FW: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List This message from Jack Slade should be about as clear as it gets. Next time the "new mobility" folk jet to a conference; I hope they reflect on: How their trip would be progressing if carried out by muscle, sail, and rail; and how they would get along without any running water (transported to them via pipes - er tubes); and electricity (transported to them by coal train, and wires; 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jack Slade [mailto:skytrek_org@rogers.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:29 PM > To: A/T Policy > Subject: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List > > The following is a copy of the message I sent to Eric Britton. I am not > on his list, so I don't really care how he takes it. > > Jack Slade > > --! > -Original > Message-----From: Eric Britton > [CLIP] > >* I have decided (unless pushed to the contrary) to omit from > this > >list all people with strong bureaucratic, institutional and economic > ties > >and interests, and specifically proponents of unproven technologies > and > >major infrastructure developments that are not fully and assiduously > cross- > >checked with the full range of sustainability criteria). > (COPY) > Eric: This message from you was posted on our Transit-Policy chatline. I > am not sure what you classify as "sustainable". I sincerely hope you don't > mean the kind of sustainable transport that I grew up with. Just in case, > let me describe it to you. > > Quite a few of the people in my home town has horses, and carts or wagons. > There were no cars. Carfree City? There were a couple of small trucks that > brought in groceries and coal. A few of us had bicycles when we got older, > but not to ride to work,! > because > the nearest factory was 82 miles away. Without transport for raw > materials and manufactured goods factories cannot exist. > > While you are carrying out your project to improve the future, I think you > should keep this in mind. Future transport has a requirement much more > important than just moving people, because without it you will not have a > job to ride to. Another fact is that un-maintained roads begin to revert > back to nature after 10 years, and they are maintained, currently, by the > tax on gasoline, which is going to dry up as portable fuel becomes > scarcer. A fifteen mile pedal on a gravel road just to visit Aunt Mary is > not my idea of a pleasant Sunday afternoon outing. > > You are eliminating all of the people who are trying to solve the full > transportation problems of the future from your list. You are going to be > left with the people who hav a lot in common with the people who said > heavier than air flight was impossible (British Royal Society) and the > gentleman who wanted to close the patent office he worked in, because > "everything that could possibly be invented has already been invented". > > Somebody once said that if you are not part of the solu! > tion you > are part of the problem. I am not a member of your list, and please don't > try to enroll me. > Jack Slade www.skytrek2000.org > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Netsignia Online , and is > believed to be clean. From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Jan 8 20:45:18 2005 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 12:45:18 +0100 Subject: [sustran] From New Regionalism to New Urbanism: Changing the Paradigm Message-ID: <00ac01c4f577$8be8a710$6501a8c0@jazz> Dear Friends and Colleagues, If you click to the New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org and click A Day at the Office on the top menu, you will find this interesting essay by Peter Calthorpe which takes an architect/planner's view of the transportation/physical development interface. Why do I bring this to your attention today? Well, I think that our still forming-up world sustainable transportation community has to look for and work with allies (and opponents) wherever we can find them, and the New Urbanism community is pretty strong in parts of the States and is certainly a creative movement with many shared interests with our own. It is my thought that if we can find some ways to put our heads together we just might end up fashioning some interesting alliances and materials for change. Hence, this is to invite you to have a look and share your reactions and suggestions with us all, if possible as well copying to our long time colleague Don Brackenbush, another architect/planner with a strong transportation background who will be at the conference, on that panel, and in a good position to relay the best of our thoughts and observations on this. I hope this rings a bell with at least a few of you. 2005 is going to be a big year for us and sustainable mobility, and we want to make sure that we get the momentum going for us from the very beginning, Eric Britton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050108/a277f734/attachment.html From sujit at vsnl.com Sun Jan 9 02:57:23 2005 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 23:27:23 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List In-Reply-To: <20050107005403.A50C02D5BD@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20050107005403.A50C02D5BD@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20050108003333.0466e0b0@mail.vsnl.com> 7 January 2005 Friends, When someone starts asking questions like "why do you travel by air?" or "how would you get along without running water (transported via pipes or tubes) and electricity etc etc" it is a sure sign that he/she don't really have convincing arguments to support his views on "inappropriate" technologies. This is done by proponents of mega-projects like big dams, high tech but totally inappropriate solutions that only benefit some vested interests, and those deeply rooted to "conventional" growth-oriented economics that fails to take the basic environmental realities into consideration. It's not a question of whether one "uses" an aircraft (or electricity or other modern amenities) for every single journey one needs to make, but more a question of ascribing "value" to certain options without giving enough consideration to the environmental foundations on which all development actually rests. Environmental reality cannot be wished away or made to evaporate through smart talk. So let's get back to the real world where major quantity of the earth's resources are consumed by a country with a very small percentage of the earth's population, where fossil fuels are going to run out soon (the exact date isn't so important) and where the present pattern of development is clearly "unsustainable" over the long term. To get a better idea of what I'm trying to say it may be useful to visit: http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/55/ In any case, let's get our basic coordinates in place and stop indulging in "pseudo science fiction" inspired road maps that will do nothing to improve sustainability-- and I'm not talking ONLY of the developing countries when I use this word. -- Sujit Patwardhan Parisar, Pune, India At 06:23 AM 1/7/2005, you wrote: >This message from Jack Slade should be about as clear as it gets. Next time >the "new mobility" folk jet to a conference; I hope they reflect on: >How their trip would be progressing if carried out by muscle, sail, and >rail; and how they would get along without any running water (transported >to them via pipes - er tubes); and electricity (transported to them by coal >train, and wires; > >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 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jack Slade [mailto:skytrek_org@rogers.com] > > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:29 PM > > To: A/T Policy > > Subject: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List > > > > The following is a copy of the message I sent to Eric Britton. I am not > > on his list, so I don't really care how he takes it. > > > > Jack Slade > > > > --! > > -Original > > Message-----From: Eric Britton > > [CLIP] > > >* I have decided (unless pushed to the contrary) to omit from > > this > > >list all people with strong bureaucratic, institutional and economic > > ties > > >and interests, and specifically proponents of unproven technologies > > and > > >major infrastructure developments that are not fully and assiduously > > cross- > > >checked with the full range of sustainability criteria). > > (COPY) > > Eric: This message from you was posted on our Transit-Policy chatline. I > > am not sure what you classify as "sustainable". I sincerely hope you don't > > mean the kind of sustainable transport that I grew up with. Just in case, > > let me describe it to you. > > > > Quite a few of the people in my home town has horses, and carts or wagons. > > There were no cars. Carfree City? There were a couple of small trucks that > > brought in groceries and coal. A few of us had bicycles when we got older, > > but not to ride to work,! > > because > > the nearest factory was 82 miles away. Without transport for raw > > materials and manufactured goods factories cannot exist. > > > > While you are carrying out your project to improve the future, I think you > > should keep this in mind. Future transport has a requirement much more > > important than just moving people, because without it you will not have a > > job to ride to. Another fact is that un-maintained roads begin to revert > > back to nature after 10 years, and they are maintained, currently, by the > > tax on gasoline, which is going to dry up as portable fuel becomes > > scarcer. A fifteen mile pedal on a gravel road just to visit Aunt Mary is > > not my idea of a pleasant Sunday afternoon outing. > > > > You are eliminating all of the people who are trying to solve the full > > transportation problems of the future from your list. You are going to be > > left with the people who hav a lot in common with the people who said > > heavier than air flight was impossible (British Royal Society) and the > > gentleman who wanted to close the patent office he worked in, because > > "everything that could possibly be invented has already been invented". > > > > Somebody once said that if you are not part of the solu! > > tion you > > are part of the problem. I am not a member of your list, and please don't > > try to enroll me. > > Jack Slade www.skytrek2000.org > > > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by Netsignia Online , and is > > believed to be clean. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan PARISAR "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411007 Telephone: +91 20 255 37955 Email: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jbs at peak.org Sun Jan 9 02:47:07 2005 From: jbs at peak.org (Jerry Schneider) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:47:07 -0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.0.20050108092833.02834a20@mail.peak.org> At 09:13 AM 1/8/05 -0800, you wrote: >Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:58:19 +0000 >From: Alan P Howes >To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > >Subject: [sustran] Re: Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT > >All noted - and I haven't had chance to follow Eric's links - but >while PRT could probably be classed as APM, by no means all APMs are >PRT. > >PRT has to be at very least few to many, and ideally many to many. >Most APMs that I know of - including, I guess, all the ones that have >actually been implemented - are few to few, if not one to one (e.g. >APMs at airports). > >Can anyone prove me wrong? What would you accept as proof? All that is available at present (i.e. published) is a simulation study for Goteburg, Sweden, a few years ago. This paper is available at: http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/ingsim.htm It produced some very interesting, detailed performance results for an O/D pattern (not clearly defined) that is probably a many-to-few, am-peak. Some people think that a many-to-many O/D pattern would be ideal for a large scale PRT network in a fairly low-density, dispersed city (e.g. the U.S. and Australia). However, the are probably many-to-few O/D patterns that could be served effectively as well. I think that the best way to address this problem is to use well-developed simulation models and various demand matrices to load the PRT network and see how it is likely to perform, in detail. It is far beyond our intuitive powers to do such assessments. Descriptions of several PRT simulation models are available at http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/simu.htm, including the one that has been used in Swedish studies. In any case, no one is going to build a large PRT network anytime soon - test tracks/programs/certification come first, small applications second and then we will know a lot more about what to do next - if anything. And, aside from Korea (Seoul) there is no reason to think that PRT will find many applications in Asia or other parts of the developing world in the near future. From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Sun Jan 9 15:30:31 2005 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 14:30:31 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Item on India bus woes from [CSE's Air Pollution bulletin] - - Jan. 7 edition Message-ID: <0C270D0ABD2B8B44900A88DE0887F49A046800@MBOX01.stf.nus.edu.sg> > ============================= > > CSE's Air Pollution Bulletin > > ============================= > > This monthly bulletin is to our friends working on air > pollution control issues. This e-bulletin supplements the > Centre for Science and Environment's fortnightly e-newsletter > and is primarily addressed to the network of concerned > experts and NGOs. Please scroll to the bottom of this page > for more information on how to unzubscribe. > > On behalf of all of us at the Centre for Science and > Environment, we wish all our readers and supporters a very > happy new year. We hope and pray that the death and > devastation that the final days of 2004 wreaked upon > humankind in the form of the killer tsunami is never repeated again. > ... > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Policy Police: Requiem for the state bus > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Kill. The ultimate scalpel operation as the final sign of > life ebbs away. > Let it die, rather than drag a colossal waste. We were > probably expecting this to happen. Not just to this > state-owned bus transit undertaking in India's largest state > -- Madhya Pradesh -- but to numerous other undertakings that > have state governments as their bosses. Bankruptcy at monthly > losses totaling Rs 50 million, indignity of unpaid salaries > for 11,500 staff members that run only 1500 buses forced this > euthanasia in Madhya Pradesh. With this came the quiet > reminder of a similar case two years back, when the Manipur > State Transport Corporation shut down operations. > > There is a depressing pattern to all this. The crisis engulfs > both state-run and city transport undertakings in many states > in India. > > The scale of the decay and the rot does not shock. This is > routine in any government-run institution. But at a time when > the interest is slowly growing in finding transportation > solutions to the congestion and pollution mayhem, > institutional failure of this magnitude spells disaster in > cities. This fatalist mindset to surrender without charting > solutions is criminal. Not a single state government has been > able to develop a blueprint to craft institutional changes > for coordinated and integrated public transport services in > cities. Cities face either a total collapse of public > transport, or chaos with private bus operators running amuck > without controls. > > The chances of recovery for the state-owned city transit > agencies look grim. A quick review foretells a crisis in > these loss-making operations. > The city undertakings are plunged into a vortex: as revenues > are down, fleet size or service enhancement is impossible, > and in this situation the losses continue to mount. The > losses for Mumbai city undertaking have increased by a > whopping 255 per cent during the decade 1990-2001. Chennai > also saw an increase in losses by 206 per cent in the same period. > > Pressured into maintaining low fares, subsidies and services > in unprofitable routes, most state-owned city undertakings > cannot recover operational cost or reach anywhere close to > breakeven point. The overall balance sheet of the Delhi > Transport Corporation (DTC) for instance, points to the need > for an urgent re-engineering of the financial situation. > > Enormous labour cost imbalances the balance sheet. If by > convention, experts consider four persons per bus as > efficient, the DTC employs nearly 40,000 people to manage a > fleet of 3,398 buses - a staff ratio of eleven persons per > bus. The salary cost of DTC eats up all its earnings -- an > astounding 91 per cent of its total earnings. > > The DTC is still afloat largely because the government > affords it immunity from financial shocks. An increasing > dependence on Ways and Means loans from the government on a > month-to-month basis to cover the working deficit will never > be adequate to square up the monthly working loss. It will be > difficult to sustain the Corporation in this fashion or any > other for long as the emerging financial fissures make clear. > > Why are we concerned? For the simple reason that this > inefficiency is translating into a mobility crisis -- > plunging passenger volumes when demand for travel is rising. > Defying all reasons, the bus occupancy in all major city bus > undertakings has fallen dramatically. In Mumbai and Kolkata, > the decline has been most dramatic -- a quarter drop from > 1990 levels. In Pune the load factor has come down from 64 > per cent in 1990 to > 45 per cent in 2001. This means that nearly half of the Pune > Corporation's buses are running empty. Fleet utilisation in > some metros like Kolkata is as dismal as 66.50 per cent. > > If the state-owned transit agencies are expected to provide > the bulk of the urban services in bigger cities, the poor > financial performance cast doubts on their viability to > provide adequate and quality public transport services. And > that worries. More people will desert buses and go zoom on > cars and two-wheelers. > > The government has not planned solutions. It despairs and > gives up. Says privatise. In fact, two key policy documents - > the Tenth Plan document and the draft national Urban > Transport Policy - make the case for greater private > participation. Such a clich? when on an all-India basis, > nearly 90 per cent of the buses are already in private hands. > Only in some cities do the state-owned undertakings have a > larger presence - 33 per cent of bus ownership in Delhi for instance. > > Already ad hoc privatisation, with route licenses being > issued in varying numbers to small bus operators, is creating > chaos in traffic management. > The current woes stem from the enhanced but unplanned private > sector participation. Mismanaged and unhealthy competition > between the state-owned and private bus agencies has > sharpened. Reckless competition is making roads unsafe. > > Though private sector investment has begun, there is no > strategic planning or set timetables to create a dramatic > turnaround. With a greater influx of private operators, it is > essential to put a regulatory framework in place. But as of > now there are no signs of individual operators being > consolidated into cooperatives or transit companies to make > them more amenable to regulations. If we wait longer, there > could be resistance from these unruly bus operators to > regulatory demands to maintain the quality of urban bus > services. Unregulated autonomy may lead to unfair practices. > The negotiating power of the regulator will only get weaker. > > While the Urban Transport Policy has failed to give any > guideline on this matter, the Tenth Plan document leaves it > to the state governments to issue guidelines on > privatisation. It only arbitrarily suggests a minimum viable > size of the fleet - preferably 50, and sets criteria for > technical and financial soundness of the operators. That's > all. No details on possible models. City governments remain > clueless about regulating bus transport -- network structure, > service quality criteria, pricing and fare structure, > safeguards for the poor and use of regulatory instruments to > manage privatisation. They are not even interested. Such a > policy vacuum! > > For the government, privatisation is a cop out. Close shops, > and shed responsibility. Look away, even as the state-owned > transit agencies dodder at sub-optimal efficiency - trying > desperately to maintain hold. Just as private operators > desperately require reorganisation, state-run transit > agencies can only survive with reforms. But city governments > show no signs of revving up to this task. > > We miss the bus once again. > > -- Anumita Roychowdhury > Right To Clean Air Campaign > > Read this online >> > http://www.cseindia.org/campaign/apc/state-bus.htm > ... > ? Centre for Science and Environment From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Jan 11 01:46:56 2005 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:46:56 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Post-Tsunami help to Samaritan Children's Home in Sri Lanka Message-ID: <000f01c4f734$134510f0$6501a8c0@jazz> Monday, January 10, 2005, Paris, France, Europe Dear Sustran Friends, I would be most grateful if you could help us do a quick "Due Diligence" of the following organization with whom we have entered into contact, with the idea of seeing what might be done to offer them some kind of support in the post-Tsunami rebuilding efforts. It is of course very difficult for us to be sure of their complete bona fide since we do not have any colleagues directly in place or experienced in working with them. My hope is that one or more of you may be able to help us carry out even a rapid check, before we begin to put a lot of time, effort and eventually money into this. Background: I attach below some extracts from a newspaper article covering the story. There is a website for the Samaritan Children's Home at http://samaritanchildrenshome.org , and here is what they have to say about themselves and their terrible plight: The Samaritan Children's Home was founded in 1994 by Dayalan Sanders in Navalady, a small village on Sri Lanka's eastern peninsula. The orphanage was built through money from the sale of his Maryland home and donations he has managed to collect over the years. With no insurance to rebuild the orphanage and a need greater than ever before, the family of Dayalan is trying to raise $400,000 needed to meet immediate needs, such as interim accommodations for the orphanage and the purchase of a 4 wheel drive vehicle for transportation; as well to rebuild and re-equip the orphanage and the children. Samaritan Children's Home was not only providing a home for the orphaned children, but was also involved in community development projects for the impoverished community in Navalady where the children's home is located. As a result of the current devastation, the needs of the community will be even more, and more children will need shelter at the orphanage. We have taken first contact with them and at this end have initiated some first discussions of possible direct assistance measures, but it would be wonderful if you could work your networks to help us be sure that this information is accurate. For my part, I am ready to move ahead, but given that there are many others who may be involved I feel it is only prudent to carry out some kind of check. Kind thanks dear friends if you can help in this. Also, should you be interested in following developments from this end, please let me know and I will try to keep you efficiently informed. Who knows? You may as well have some good ideas for us in this. ------------------------------ Extracts from article dated Wednesday, December 29, 2004. By John Lancaster / The Washington Post With little warning, director saves 28 orphans from tsunami Navalady, Sri Lanka - On Sunday morning the 26th, two hundred yards away from the beach in the Samaritan Children's Home in Navalady, a small fishing village that occupies a narrow peninsula on Sri Lanka's economically depressed east coast, most of the 28 children were still in their rooms, getting ready for services. The orphanage director and found, Dayalan Sanders heard the pounding of feet in the corridor outside his room, and his wife burst through the door, a frantic look on her face. "The sea is coming!" she said. "Come! Come! Look at the sea!" There on the horizon was a "30-foot wall of water," racing toward the wispy casuarina pines that marked the landward side of the beach. With barely any time to think, let alone act, he ran toward the lagoon, where the orphanage's boat chafed at a pier. By then, many of the children had come run outside, some of them half-dressed. Sanders shouted as loud as he could, urging them all toward the boat. Thanks to quick thinking, blind luck and an outboard motor that somehow started on the first pull, the orphans and their caretakers joined the ranks of countless survivors of the epic disaster that so far has claimed tens of thousands of lives in Sri Lanka and 10 other countries. Desperate, he asked if anyone had seen his daughter, and a moment later one of the older girls thrust the toddler into his arms. Sanders heaved her into the boat, along with the other small children, as the older ones, joined by his wife and the orphanage staff, clambered aboard. One of his employees yanked on the starter cord, and the engine sputtered instantly to life -- something that Sanders swears never happened before. "Usually, you have to pull it four or five times," he said. Crammed with more than 30 people, the dangerously overloaded launch roared into the lagoon at almost precisely the same moment that the wall of water overwhelmed the orphanage, swamping its one-story buildings to the rafters. As the compound receded behind the boat, Sanders said, he watched in amazement as the surging current smashed a garage and ejected a brand-new Toyota pickup. "The roof came flying off -- it just splintered in every direction," he recalled. "I saw the Toyota just pop out of the garage." The orphans' ordeal did not end when their boat pulled away from the shore. Not only was water cascading over the lagoon side of the peninsula, but it also was pouring in directly from the mouth of the estuary about 2 miles away. Sanders feared the converging currents would swamp the small craft. As it made for the mouth of the lagoon, the boat was broadsided and nearly capsized by the torrent pouring over the peninsula. "The children were very frightened," Kohila Sanders recalled. "We were praying, 'God help us, God help us.' " Eventually, the boat made it to the opposite shore, to the city of Batticaloa about a mile and a half distant. The Sanderses, their daughter and about a dozen of the orphaned and now displaced children have found temporary refuge in a tiny church; the rest have been sent elsewhere. The scene at the orphanage was one of utter devastation. The grounds were covered by up to three feet of sand. Several buildings, including the staff quarters, were entirely gone, and the others were damaged beyond repair. Surveying the wreckage, Sanders broke down and cried. But at other moments, he was philosophical about his loss. "If there was anyone who should have got swept away by this tidal wave, it should have been us," he said. "We were eyeball to eyeball with the wave." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050110/54392a28/attachment.html From dguruswamy at hotmail.com Tue Jan 11 09:22:42 2005 From: dguruswamy at hotmail.com (Dharm Guruswamy) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:22:42 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Post-Tsunami help to Samaritan Children's Home in Sri Lanka Message-ID: There was a piece on CNN about this. The local media here (not just print but local TV news) in Washington DC have also covered the attempts of the sisters family's attempts to raise money locally in the Washington, DC area. -----Original Message----- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:46:56 +0100 From: "EcoPlan, Paris" Subject: [sustran] Post-Tsunami help to Samaritan Children's Home in Sri Lanka Monday, January 10, 2005, Paris, France, Europe Dear Sustran Friends, I would be most grateful if you could help us do a quick "Due Diligence" of the following organization with whom we have entered into contact, with the idea of seeing what might be done to offer them some kind of support in the post-Tsunami rebuilding efforts. It is of course very difficult for us to be sure of their complete bona fide since we do not have any colleagues directly in place or experienced in working with them. My hope is that one or more of you may be able to help us carry out even a rapid check, before we begin to put a lot of time, effort and eventually money into this. Background: I attach below some extracts from a newspaper article covering the story. There is a website for the Samaritan Children's Home at http://samaritanchildrenshome.org , and here is what they have to say about themselves and their terrible plight: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050110/6d3af93d/attachment.html From UpaliP at itdg.slt.lk Tue Jan 11 10:58:53 2005 From: UpaliP at itdg.slt.lk (Upali Pannilage) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:58:53 +0600 Subject: [sustran] Re: Post-Tsunami help to Samaritan Children's Home in Sri Lanka Message-ID: <1F0F3AE7085FF34FACC2E77D67C5B7EA41DB16@itdgsl0c.itdg.slt.lk> Thanks for sharing this with us. I will send one of our staff members to study the actual situation there and will act accordingly. Upali Upali Pannilage Programme Team Leader ITDG- South Asia No 05, Lionel Edirisinghe Mawatha Kirulapona Colombo-05 Sri Lanka Tel. ++94 01 02 829412 E-mail upalip@itdg.slt.lk or pannila@hotmail.com Web : www.itdg.org -----Original Message----- From: EcoPlan, Paris [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org] Sent: Monday 10 January 2005 10:47 PM To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' Cc: 'hamid sardar'; 'France Benainous' Subject: [sustran] Post-Tsunami help to Samaritan Children's Home in Sri Lanka Monday, January 10, 2005, Paris, France, Europe Dear Sustran Friends, I would be most grateful if you could help us do a quick "Due Diligence" of the following organization with whom we have entered into contact, with the idea of seeing what might be done to offer them some kind of support in the post-Tsunami rebuilding efforts. It is of course very difficult for us to be sure of their complete bona fide since we do not have any colleagues directly in place or experienced in working with them. My hope is that one or more of you may be able to help us carry out even a rapid check, before we begin to put a lot of time, effort and eventually money into this. Background: I attach below some extracts from a newspaper article covering the story. There is a website for the Samaritan Children's Home at http://samaritanchildrenshome.org , and here is what they have to say about themselves and their terrible plight: The Samaritan Children's Home was founded in 1994 by Dayalan Sanders in Navalady, a small village on Sri Lanka's eastern peninsula. The orphanage was built through money from the sale of his Maryland home and donations he has managed to collect over the years. With no insurance to rebuild the orphanage and a need greater than ever before, the family of Dayalan is trying to raise $400,000 needed to meet immediate needs, such as interim accommodations for the orphanage and the purchase of a 4 wheel drive vehicle for transportation; as well to rebuild and re-equip the orphanage and the children. Samaritan Children's Home was not only providing a home for the orphaned children, but was also involved in community development projects for the impoverished community in Navalady where the children's home is located. As a result of the current devastation, the needs of the community will be even more, and more children will need shelter at the orphanage. We have taken first contact with them and at this end have initiated some first discussions of possible direct assistance measures, but it would be wonderful if you could work your networks to help us be sure that this information is accurate. For my part, I am ready to move ahead, but given that there are many others who may be involved I feel it is only prudent to carry out some kind of check. Kind thanks dear friends if you can help in this. Also, should you be interested in following developments from this end, please let me know and I will try to keep you efficiently informed. Who knows? You may as well have some good ideas for us in this. ------------------------------ Extracts from article dated Wednesday, December 29, 2004. By John Lancaster / The Washington Post With little warning, director saves 28 orphans from tsunami Navalady, Sri Lanka - On Sunday morning the 26th, two hundred yards away from the beach in the Samaritan Children's Home in Navalady, a small fishing village that occupies a narrow peninsula on Sri Lanka's economically depressed east coast, most of the 28 children were still in their rooms, getting ready for services. The orphanage director and found, Dayalan Sanders heard the pounding of feet in the corridor outside his room, and his wife burst through the door, a frantic look on her face. "The sea is coming!" she said. "Come! Come! Look at the sea!" There on the horizon was a "30-foot wall of water," racing toward the wispy casuarina pines that marked the landward side of the beach. With barely any time to think, let alone act, he ran toward the lagoon, where the orphanage's boat chafed at a pier. By then, many of the children had come run outside, some of them half-dressed. Sanders shouted as loud as he could, urging them all toward the boat. Thanks to quick thinking, blind luck and an outboard motor that somehow started on the first pull, the orphans and their caretakers joined the ranks of countless survivors of the epic disaster that so far has claimed tens of thousands of lives in Sri Lanka and 10 other countries. Desperate, he asked if anyone had seen his daughter, and a moment later one of the older girls thrust the toddler into his arms. Sanders heaved her into the boat, along with the other small children, as the older ones, joined by his wife and the orphanage staff, clambered aboard. One of his employees yanked on the starter cord, and the engine sputtered instantly to life -- something that Sanders swears never happened before. "Usually, you have to pull it four or five times," he said. Crammed with more than 30 people, the dangerously overloaded launch roared into the lagoon at almost precisely the same moment that the wall of water overwhelmed the orphanage, swamping its one-story buildings to the rafters. As the compound receded behind the boat, Sanders said, he watched in amazement as the surging current smashed a garage and ejected a brand-new Toyota pickup. "The roof came flying off -- it just splintered in every direction," he recalled. "I saw the Toyota just pop out of the garage." The orphans' ordeal did not end when their boat pulled away from the shore. Not only was water cascading over the lagoon side of the peninsula, but it also was pouring in directly from the mouth of the estuary about 2 miles away. Sanders feared the converging currents would swamp the small craft. As it made for the mouth of the lagoon, the boat was broadsided and nearly capsized by the torrent pouring over the peninsula. "The children were very frightened," Kohila Sanders recalled. "We were praying, 'God help us, God help us.' " Eventually, the boat made it to the opposite shore, to the city of Batticaloa about a mile and a half distant. The Sanderses, their daughter and about a dozen of the orphaned and now displaced children have found temporary refuge in a tiny church; the rest have been sent elsewhere. The scene at the orphanage was one of utter devastation. The grounds were covered by up to three feet of sand. Several buildings, including the staff quarters, were entirely gone, and the others were damaged beyond repair. Surveying the wreckage, Sanders broke down and cried. But at other moments, he was philosophical about his loss. "If there was anyone who should have got swept away by this tidal wave, it should have been us," he said. "We were eyeball to eyeball with the wave." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050111/8241f658/attachment.html From roelof.wittink at cycling.nl Tue Jan 11 17:50:13 2005 From: roelof.wittink at cycling.nl (roelof.wittink@cycling.nl) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:50:13 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Post-Tsunami help to Samaritan Children's Home in Sri Lanka In-Reply-To: <000f01c4f734$134510f0$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: <41E3A155.3370.3EDBCC@localhost> I-ce and ITDG Sri Lanka currently exchange how the Low Cost Mobility Support program, coordinated by I-ce with ITDG as one of the partners, can be used for support to the rehabilitation of roads and be linked to the huge relief efforts (the Dutch civil society collected 115 million euro so far). ITDG was already in a process of developing new roads standards that would overcome the shortcomings from the past and incorporate sidewalks and bike paths. In the city of Galle a bicycle plan would be developed. The re-investments needed now are an opportunity not-to- miss. Roelof Wittink I-ce general director On 10 Jan 2005 at 17:46, EcoPlan, Paris wrote: > > Monday, January 10, 2005, Paris, France, Europe > > Dear Sustran Friends, > > I would be most grateful if you could help us do a quick ?Due > Diligence? of the following organization with whom we have entered > into contact, with the idea of seeing what might be done to offer them > some kind of support in the post-Tsunami rebuilding efforts.It is of > course very difficult for us to be sure of their complete bona fide > since we do not have any colleagues directly in place or experienced > in working with them. My hope is that one or more of you may be able > to help us carry out even a rapid check, before we begin to put a lot > of time, effort and eventually money into this. > > Background: I attach below some extracts from a newspaper article > covering the story. There is a website for the Samaritan Children's > Home at http://samaritanchildrenshome.org, and here is what they have > to say about themselves and their terrible plight: > > The Samaritan Children's Home was founded in 1994 by Dayalan > Sanders in Navalady, a small village on Sri Lanka's eastern > peninsula. The orphanage was built through money from the sale of > his Maryland home and donations he has managed to collect over the > years. > > With no insurance to rebuild the orphanage and a need greater than > ever before, the family of Dayalan is trying to raise $400,000 > needed to meet immediate needs, such as interim accommodations for > the orphanage and the purchase of a 4 wheel drive vehicle for > transportation; as well to rebuild and re-equip the orphanage and > the children. > > Samaritan Children's Home was not only providing a home for the > orphaned children, but was also involved in community development > projects for the impoverished community in Navalady where the > children's home is located. As a result of the current > devastation, the needs of the community will be even more, and > more children will need shelter at the orphanage. > > We have taken first contact with them and at this end have initiated > some first discussions of possible direct assistance measures, but it > would be wonderful if you could work your networks to help us be sure > that this information is accurate. For my part, I am ready to move > ahead, but given that there are many others who may be involved I feel > it is only prudent to carry out some kind of check. > > Kind thanks dear friends if you can help in this. Also, should you be > interested in following developments from this end, please let me know > and I will try to keep you efficiently informed. Who knows? You may as > well have some good ideas for us in this. > > ------------------------------ > > Extracts from article dated Wednesday, December 29, 2004. By John > Lancaster / The Washington Post > > With little warning, director saves 28 orphans from > tsunami > > Navalady, Sri Lanka ? On Sunday morning the 26th, two hundred yards > away from the beach in the Samaritan Children's Home in Navalady, a > small fishing village that occupies a narrow peninsula on Sri Lanka's > economically depressed east coast, most of the 28 children were still > in their rooms, getting ready for services. The orphanage director and > found, Dayalan Sanders heard the pounding of feet in the corridor > outside his room, and his wife burst through the door, a frantic look > on her face. "The sea is coming!" she said. "Come! Come! Look at the > sea!" There on the horizon was a "30-foot wall of water,"racing toward > the wispy casuarina pines that marked the landward side of the beach. > With barely any time to think, let alone act, he ran toward the > lagoon, where the orphanage's boat chafed at a pier. By then, many of > the children had come run outside, some of them half-dressed. Sanders > shouted as loud as he could, urging them all toward the boat. Thanks > to quick thinking, blind luck and an outboard motor that somehow > started on the first pull, the orphans and their caretakers joined the > ranks of countless survivors of the epic disaster that so far has > claimed tens of thousands of lives in Sri Lanka and 10 other > countries. Desperate, he asked if anyone had seen his daughter, and a > moment later one of the older girls thrust the toddler into his arms. > Sanders heaved her into the boat, along with the other small children, > as the older ones, joined by his wife and the orphanage staff, > clambered aboard. One of his employees yanked on the starter cord, and > the engine sputtered instantly to life -- something that Sanders > swears never happened before. "Usually, you have to pull it four or > five times," he said. Crammed with more than 30 people, the > dangerously overloaded launch roared into the lagoon at almost > precisely the same moment that the wall of water overwhelmed the > orphanage, swamping its one-story buildings to the rafters. As the > compound receded behind the boat, Sanders said, he watched in > amazement as the surging current smashed a garage and ejected a > brand-new Toyota pickup. "The roof came flying off -- it just > splintered in every direction," he recalled. "I saw the Toyota just > pop out of the garage." The orphans' ordeal did not end when their > boat pulled away from the shore. Not only was water cascading over the > lagoon side of the peninsula, but it also was pouring in directly from > the mouth of the estuary about 2 miles away. Sanders feared the > converging currents would swamp the small craft. As it made for the > mouth of the lagoon, the boat was broadsided and nearly capsized by > the torrent pouring over the peninsula. "The children were very > frightened," Kohila Sanders recalled. "We were praying, 'God help us, > God help us.' " Eventually, the boat made it to the opposite shore, to > the city of Batticaloa about a mile and a half distant. The Sanderses, > their daughter and about a dozen of the orphaned and now displaced > children have found temporary refuge in a tiny church; the rest have > been sent elsewhere. The scene at the orphanage was one of utter > devastation. The grounds were covered by up to three feet of sand. > Several buildings, including the staff quarters, were entirely gone, > and the others were damaged beyond repair. Surveying the wreckage, > Sanders broke down and cried. But at other moments, he was > philosophical about his loss. "If there was anyone who should have got > swept away by this tidal wave, it should have been us," he said. "We > were eyeball to eyeball with the wave." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************* Roelof Wittink, Director I-ce = Interface for Cycling Expertise Trans 3, 3512 JJ Utrecht, The Netherlands tel: +31 (0)30 2304521 fax: +31 (0)30 2312384 email (general): i-ce@cycling.nl email (personal): roelof.wittink@cycling.nl website: www.i-ce.info ******************************************************* From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed Jan 12 21:05:13 2005 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:05:13 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Recommended device for free international phone calls Message-ID: <005101c4f89e$fa4dcb20$6501a8c0@jazz> Wednesday, January 12, 2005, Paris, France, Europe Dear World Wide Sustainability Colleagues, In the spirit of international cooperation in support of our strongly shared concerns for advancing the sustainability agenda in specific ways and without further undue delay, I would like to invite you today to give serious consideration to a new software tool for communication that you probably have already heard about but only a few of us have as yet started to use. The product is Skype, and their website is www.skype.com . Skype offers free IP telephone calls to all who are signed on to their network. Also in its latest version it offers two new wrinkles that are of use to many of us: direct file transfer and the possibility of conference calls bringing together up to four people at the same time. Sound quality? We find it comparable to the normal phone, and often better. It is also - and this is indeed important for those many of us who are cash-strapped in our public interest work - free. To make it work for you, you will need a recent computer, a sound card, and a minimum 33.6 Kbps modem or broadband: cable, DSL, etc. (As often on the web, faster is better, but for once it is not a barrier in this case.) Skype works with Mac and Linux as well as Windows. For full product information and system requirements, try http://www.skype.com/products/. We feel strongly enough about our international collaboration that we invite you to get in touch once you have it installed so that we can together check it out and see how it might best work for you. My personal Skype address/number is simply ericbritton (no punctuation). If you go today to the New Mobility Agenda site at http://newmobility.org, you will note that we have put a one-click icon for a direct Skype call to us here on the left menu. I hope that this will open up an era of closer communication and more efficient cooperation between us and all those with whom we are working and exchanging materials and cooperating internationally. In the fight for sustainable development and social justice in this world and now, we need to make use of every possible tool and advantage that we can get our hands on. With all good wishes, Eric Britton The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at www.ecoplan.org Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France, Europe Free call via Skype.com. Click here. Free video/voice conferencing available at http://newmobilitypartners.org T: +331 4326 1323 Fax/Voicemail hotline: +331 5301 2896 E: mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org E Back-up: mail@ericbritton.org - Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050112/c741dea8/attachment.html From et3 at et3.com Thu Jan 13 12:46:55 2005 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:46:55 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List In-Reply-To: <002301c4f4fb$b086a800$50b601c8@pentiumiii> Message-ID: <20050113034724.2832E2C49C@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Carlos, I was not implying any sort of guilt, only that one considers what life would be like if early aircraft and electricity development had been successfully circumvented by "new mobility" type of efforts. Don't you think it a bit ironic that most of those who show up at sustainability oriented conferences that seek to eliminate cars and aircraft use car and air travel to get to them? It may be childish to point out this irony, and it is certainty elitist to assume that it is only "others", or Americans that should stop using cars and aircraft to travel. The first bike in America showed up May 21 1819, long before the first automobile, and even before the first steam ship of rail locomotive. 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > Carlos Cordero Vel?squez > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 3:58 PM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List > > The arguments outlined in the previos messages sound a bit childish, since > the authors pretends a kind of guilty from the people involved with > sustainable transportation while using a plane or getting electricity. I > hope the authors do not not feel guilty every time they walk or use a > bicycle. > Following the logic of the argument one could say, well, what about all > the > walking involved in building the technologies and services around the > plane? > > But besides futilities, there is also in these messages the strong line of > "the > future" vs "the past" which are not sustained in transportation history or > even in the way technology develops: > > For instance the bicycle and cars can not be compared as old and new > technologies, since both are contemporary technologies, not only in > the sense that both showed up almost the same historical moment, but also > since there are a strong relationship between both: the motorized car took > the form of the bicycle at the beginning of this development (in fact the > "first car" as it is shown in the Mercedes Benz Museum in Sttutgart is a > motorcycle). The other way around, Bicycles "paved" the way to cars since > the first ways used for bikes allowed a better circulation of cars in > Europe. > The point is that there is no line which divides past and future when we > talk about contemporary and modern means of transport, in fact "modern" > in > the latin sense of the word, means "the way or the form of today" So there > is no modernity if we do not understand this basic starting point. > > Any new technology does not develop isolated, they always need others (no > matter how > old or new they are) and this situation has an influence in the way the > technology develops. We can regard computers as a very new technology, but > we > write on them in the same way developed by the type writer machine, with a > keyboard organized in a way create by the type writer machine. So > computer also share new and old technologies inside. > > In that context I found very futil the terminology about "the stone age" > and > we should concentrate more in the way the technologies are mixed, the > purpose > of this technologies and the social context they are applied. > Regards, > Carlos > > ----- Original Messa > ge ----- > From: "Daryl Oster" > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > ; > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:53 PM > Subject: [sustran] FW: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List > > > This message from Jack Slade should be about as clear as it gets. Next > time > the "new mobility" folk jet to a conference; I hope they reflect on: > How their trip would be progressing if carried out by muscle, sail, and > rail; and how they would get along without any running water (transported > to them via pipes - er tubes); and electricity (transported to them by > coal > train, and wires; > > 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 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jack Slade [mailto:skytrek_org@rogers.com] > > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:29 PM > > To: A/T Policy > > Subject: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List > > > > The following is a copy of the message I sent to Eric Britton. I am not > > on his list, so I don't really care how he takes it. > > > > Jack Slade > > > > --! > > -Original > > Message-----From: Eric Britton > > [CLIP] > > >* I have decided (unless pushed to the contrary) to omit from > > this > > >list all people with strong bureaucratic, institutional and economic > > ties > > >and interests, and specifically proponents of unproven technologies > > and > > >major infrastructure developments that are not fully and assiduously > > cross- > > >checked with the full range of sustainability criteria). > > (COPY) > > Eric: This message from you was posted on our Transit-Policy chatline. > I > > am not sure what you classify as "sustainable". I sincerely hope you > don't > > mean the kind of sustainable transport that I grew up with. Just in > case, > > let me describe it to you. > > > > Quite a few of the people in my home town has horses, and carts or > wagons. > > There were no cars. Carfree City? There were a couple of small trucks > that > > brought in groceries and coal. A few of us had bicycles when we got > older, > > but not to ride to work,! > > because > > the nearest factory was 82 miles away. Without transport for raw > > materials and manufactured goods factories cannot exist. > > > > While you are carrying out your project to improve the future, I think > you > > should keep this in mind. Future transport has a requirement much more > > important than just moving people, because without it you will not have > a > > job to ride to. Another fact is that un-maintained roads begin to revert > > back to nature after 10 years, and they are maintained, currently, by > the > > tax on gasoline, which is going to dry up as portable fuel becomes > > scarcer. A fifteen mile pedal on a gravel road just to visit Aunt Mary > is > > not my idea of a pleasant Sunday afternoon outing. > > > > You are eliminating all of the people who are trying to solve the full > > transportation problems of the future from your list. You are going to > be > > left with the people who hav a lot in common with the people who said > > heavier than air flight was impossible (British Royal Society) and the > > gentleman who wanted to close the patent office he worked in, because > > "everything that could possibly be invented has already been invented". > > > > Somebody once said that if you are not part of the solu! > > tion you > > are part of the problem. I am not a member of your list, and please > don't > > try to enroll me. > > Jack Slade www.skytrek2000.org > > From ccordero at amauta.rcp.net.pe Fri Jan 14 01:43:17 2005 From: ccordero at amauta.rcp.net.pe (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Carlos_Cordero_Vel=E1squez?=) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:43:17 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: bikeplanes References: <20050113034724.2832E2C49C@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <001201c4f98f$2a262900$c9b601c8@pentiumiii> Just some comments on Daryl Oster message: I have been in several conferences on sustainable transportation and never heard of anyone a proposal to eliminate air craft or even automoviles. As far as a know reality can not be eliminated, however it can be changed. Maybe a sutil difference between "eliminate planes" and "create better conditions for less travel or more nature friendly travel" should be made. On the other hand the idea of rationalize car use is very well accepted even inside the car industry. I do not remember saying that bicycles and cars share a birthday, but both are contemporary vehicles along with rail locomotives, beign all of them part of the industrial revolution applied to transportation, especially if you think that the US is not the center of the world. By the way, the Wright brothers, who invented the first powered aircraft, were bicycle mechanics and they even had a bicycle shop. About historical dates by 1819 the only "bicyles" invented were the Draisine ( Laufmashine), basically a swift walker and the Pedestrian Curricle another tipe of swift walker, called also in England a Hobby Horse. Both were basically a toy for the aristocracy during those times. But going to the core of the message why is ironic or contradictory using a plane to go to a conference? Am I suposse to swim to go to Europe to fit your criteria of coherence? Because I use a plane from time to time am I no entitled to ask why the Concorde was flying so much time even if it was a big financial loss (which meant huge subsidies from the goverment and for the company) for stated owned Air France or BAirways and not listening the constant complain from comunities about the levels of noise they made? Well, maybe using a plane when there are other and more friendly options of travel can be as contradictory as a heart surgeon doctor smoking a cigarrete. But does it make him or her a fake? Any change in the world is made by people living in the world of today, even sometimes with contradictory attitudes and no claiming to be perfect, because if we wait for perfect people there is no need to or no change at all. Instead of a perfect state or a social nirvana, sustanability is a horizon and as you probably know no matter how long you walk in its direction a horizon always seems far away from you. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daryl Oster" To: "'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'" Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 10:46 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List Carlos, I was not implying any sort of guilt, only that one considers what life would be like if early aircraft and electricity development had been successfully circumvented by "new mobility" type of efforts. Don't you think it a bit ironic that most of those who show up at sustainability oriented conferences that seek to eliminate cars and aircraft use car and air travel to get to them? It may be childish to point out this irony, and it is certainty elitist to assume that it is only "others", or Americans that should stop using cars and aircraft to travel. The first bike in America showed up May 21 1819, long before the first automobile, and even before the first steam ship of rail locomotive. 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > Carlos Cordero Vel?squez > Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 3:58 PM > To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List > > The arguments outlined in the previos messages sound a bit childish, since > the authors pretends a kind of guilty from the people involved with > sustainable transportation while using a plane or getting electricity. I > hope the authors do not not feel guilty every time they walk or use a > bicycle. > Following the logic of the argument one could say, well, what about all > the > walking involved in building the technologies and services around the > plane? > > But besides futilities, there is also in these messages the strong line of > "the > future" vs "the past" which are not sustained in transportation history or > even in the way technology develops: > > For instance the bicycle and cars can not be compared as old and new > technologies, since both are contemporary technologies, not only in > the sense that both showed up almost the same historical moment, but also > since there are a strong relationship between both: the motorized car took > the form of the bicycle at the beginning of this development (in fact the > "first car" as it is shown in the Mercedes Benz Museum in Sttutgart is a > motorcycle). The other way around, Bicycles "paved" the way to cars since > the first ways used for bikes allowed a better circulation of cars in > Europe. > The point is that there is no line which divides past and future when we > talk about contemporary and modern means of transport, in fact "modern" > in > the latin sense of the word, means "the way or the form of today" So there > is no modernity if we do not understand this basic starting point. > > Any new technology does not develop isolated, they always need others (no > matter how > old or new they are) and this situation has an influence in the way the > technology develops. We can regard computers as a very new technology, but > we > write on them in the same way developed by the type writer machine, with a > keyboard organized in a way create by the type writer machine. So > computer also share new and old technologies inside. > > In that context I found very futil the terminology about "the stone age" > and > we should concentrate more in the way the technologies are mixed, the > purpose > of this technologies and the social context they are applied. > Regards, > Carlos > > ----- Original Messa > ge ----- > From: "Daryl Oster" > To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport" > ; > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:53 PM > Subject: [sustran] FW: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List > > > This message from Jack Slade should be about as clear as it gets. Next > time > the "new mobility" folk jet to a conference; I hope they reflect on: > How their trip would be progressing if carried out by muscle, sail, and > rail; and how they would get along without any running water (transported > to them via pipes - er tubes); and electricity (transported to them by > coal > train, and wires; > > 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 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jack Slade [mailto:skytrek_org@rogers.com] > > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:29 PM > > To: A/T Policy > > Subject: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List > > > > The following is a copy of the message I sent to Eric Britton. I am not > > on his list, so I don't really care how he takes it. > > > > Jack Slade > > > > --! > > -Original > > Message-----From: Eric Britton > > [CLIP] > > >* I have decided (unless pushed to the contrary) to omit from > > this > > >list all people with strong bureaucratic, institutional and economic > > ties > > >and interests, and specifically proponents of unproven technologies > > and > > >major infrastructure developments that are not fully and assiduously > > cross- > > >checked with the full range of sustainability criteria). > > (COPY) > > Eric: This message from you was posted on our Transit-Policy chatline. > I > > am not sure what you classify as "sustainable". I sincerely hope you > don't > > mean the kind of sustainable transport that I grew up with. Just in > case, > > let me describe it to you. > > > > Quite a few of the people in my home town has horses, and carts or > wagons. > > There were no cars. Carfree City? There were a couple of small trucks > that > > brought in groceries and coal. A few of us had bicycles when we got > older, > > but not to ride to work,! > > because > > the nearest factory was 82 miles away. Without transport for raw > > materials and manufactured goods factories cannot exist. > > > > While you are carrying out your project to improve the future, I think > you > > should keep this in mind. Future transport has a requirement much more > > important than just moving people, because without it you will not have > a > > job to ride to. Another fact is that un-maintained roads begin to revert > > back to nature after 10 years, and they are maintained, currently, by > the > > tax on gasoline, which is going to dry up as portable fuel becomes > > scarcer. A fifteen mile pedal on a gravel road just to visit Aunt Mary > is > > not my idea of a pleasant Sunday afternoon outing. > > > > You are eliminating all of the people who are trying to solve the full > > transportation problems of the future from your list. You are going to > be > > left with the people who hav a lot in common with the people who said > > heavier than air flight was impossible (British Royal Society) and the > > gentleman who wanted to close the patent office he worked in, because > > "everything that could possibly be invented has already been invented". > > > > Somebody once said that if you are not part of the solu! > > tion you > > are part of the problem. I am not a member of your list, and please > don't > > try to enroll me. > > Jack Slade www.skytrek2000.org > > ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia. From et3 at et3.com Fri Jan 14 04:49:37 2005 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:49:37 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: bikeplanes In-Reply-To: <001201c4f98f$2a262900$c9b601c8@pentiumiii> Message-ID: <20050113195007.025302D5BF@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> > -----Original Message On Behalf Of Carlos Cordero Vel?squez ----- > Subject: [sustran] Re: bikeplanes > > Just some comments on Daryl Oster message: > I have been in several conferences on sustainable transportation and > never heard of anyone a proposal to eliminate air craft or even > automoviles. Carlos, What do you believe the term "car free" is supposed to mean?? > On the other hand the idea of rationalize car use is very well accepted > even inside the car industry. Of course, any behavior can be rationalized; just look at your example: > But going to the core of the message why is ironic or contradictory using > a plane to go to a conference? Am I suposse to swim to go to Europe to fit > your criteria of coherence? You are the one rationalizing. IMO, paying the cost is the only rationalization needed. > Because I use a plane from time to time am I no entitled to ask why the > Concorde was flying so much time even if it was a big financial loss > (which meant huge subsidies from the goverment and for the company) for > stated owned Air France or BAirways and not listening the constant > complain from comunities about the levels of noise they made? Your exact argument can be equally applied to the French TGV. "The Economist" reported that the French rail system is losing 3.5 Billion euro per year, and has amassed more than 30B euro in subsidy. The TGV makes horrific noise that disturbs far more people than the over-water Concord routes did. > Well, maybe using a plane when there are other and more friendly options > of travel can be as contradictory as a heart surgeon doctor smoking a > cigarrete. But does it make him or her a fake? Perhaps not a fake (assuming the medical license is in order), but certainly a hypocrite if he or she advises customers to stop smoking. > Any change in the world is made by people living in the world of today, > even sometimes with contradictory attitudes and no claiming to be perfect, > because if we wait for perfect people there is no need to or no change at > all. Instead of a perfect state or a social nirvana, sustanability is > a horizon and as you probably know no matter how long you walk in its > direction a horizon always seems far away from you. If your are correct, and sustainability is a horizon that cannot be achieved, then why try? In fact, according to the measures of UN a21, the horizon was further away at Johannesburg, than at Rio, and the horizon is even further into the distance now. If one keeps doing what they are doing, they will keep getting what they are getting. Revolutions quickly achieve what is considered to be a horizon. THE STRUCTURE OF TRANSPORTATION REVOLUTIONS by Daniel Sweeny http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/charge20.htm shows that transportation changes in revolutions. Starting a new revolution is the way to sustainability, it will do no good to seek to undo a prior revolution (or revolutions). ETT has the potential to be the revolution to achieve sustainability -- and then a new horizon will eventually become apparent as ETT encounters limits of sustainability. 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 eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed Jan 19 00:14:17 2005 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:14:17 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Plain-speaking on carsharing strategies and support in Brussels next week Message-ID: <005901c4fd70$67a11170$6501a8c0@jazz> The need for innovation is not being met by the top-down, highly bureaucratic and geopolitical funding offered by the EU. As we prepare to join next week?s ?Keys to Carsharing: Moving the City of Tomorrow? meeting of the European Commission?s moses program in Brussels (see yesterday?s mail on this subject and http://213.170.188.3/moses/index.asp?page=96 for meeting details), we have an opportunity to do some creative international expert-based plain-speaking on how the EC can best help in both the specific area of supporting and extending carsharing where it is showing that it can do the job, and indeed the whole matter of supporting creative innovation in the New Mobility Agenda more broadly. Important stuff and a fine opportunity to make our voices heard. Without wishing to seem to be overly cruel or argumentative, it is my bet that in a world where sustainability is treated as a REAL PRIORITY (as opposed to the usual costless posturing and rhetorical messages) our hosts should be gearing their loins to take advantage of this occasion to get real feedback as to what is working, what is not, and what is needed to do better in this chosen sector of sustainable transportation. Coming to Brussels after all are quite a collection of capable people, a number of whom have real hands-on experience at the operational level, and who in many cases have some pretty sharp views on what is needed from the public sector? views that need not only to be aired in public but also somehow made to stick. I got to thinking about all this in particular this morning as I read an article about another attempted innovation here in Europe, the recent failure of the MIT spin-off Media Lab Europe (details at http://iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/01/17/yourmoney/medial ab.html). And in particular the comments of the always ebullient, always provocative Nick Negroponte: "The need for innovation is not being met by the top-down, highly bureaucratic and geopolitical funding offered by the EU," Nicholas Negroponte, Media Lab's founder, said in an e-mail interview. He said that he had hoped that the Dublin operation would be "a virus," spurring innovation and prompting reviews of legislation like bankruptcy rules that handicap entrepreneurs. My point is that this is equally valid for much that is going on in the transport sector as well, carsharing included, and that this approach of ?top-down, highly bureaucratic and geopolitical funding? now needs to be challenged. But OK, what do we propose to put in its place? We can see for sure that their old model of how to go about this is not only truly old (at best a 1960?s concept with a bit of 1990 sauce), but it is creaking and truly ready for the dustbin of history. So? it will not be enough just to drink their beer in Brussels next week and whine among ourselves, we need to step forward with a positive set of suggestions when it comes to putting carsharing to work in the cause of the sustainability agenda. And who better to come from than this group. Our friends at the Commission need a whole new model for their operations in this area I am afraid; it is not just a matter of applauding what they say they have done and eventually suggesting a bit of fine tuning here or there. But a major overhaul and new thrust of both policy and practice. Let me see if I can suggest one, just to get the ball rolling over these next days. A No-Fault Grassroots Carsharing Grant Program for the EU ? to start immediately: (A first cut outline for discussion) Objective: Program to respond in a timely and creative 21st century, Open Society fashion to requests from specific cities or groups to carry out specific initiatives to advance the carsharing agenda in their city or more broadly. 1. All grants of a single amount: ? 50k (we call this a no-brainer approach) 2. Funds to be made available as a lump sum within 60 days of grant application. 3. Whole thing to be mediated on the net with a low overhead, low interference, zero policing structure. The idea is to find worthy projects, competent people, give them the money and get out of their way. Also worth a thought or two: * Local partners must be prepared to put up at least x2 this amount in local support, including in kind from NGOs. * All requests to be made in 2 pages or less, counter-signed and actively supported by at least three local partners, including local government and the core group to whom the planning and implementation reasonability for actually getting the local carsharing operation up and going. * Grant to be ?countersigned? by at least two recognized members of an independent international expert panel to be named not by any bureaucratic or political organization but by this consortium in cooperation with, say, two other highly thought of, independent non-governmental groups with deep expertise in the transportation/sustainability agenda (for example the Sustran group and Gender and Transport network, among others). (Panel members to be compensated at a standard rate of ? 500 for intitial study, verification and support of the grant application. From the overall panel, two more members will be chosen for their final independent assessment and views for future projects and work. Also be to be compensated by a likewise non variable ? 500 honorarium for a final independent assessment. * Entire process is to be publicly traced real time on a central website open to all comers, and supported by commentaries, views and suggestions. * Grant recipients engage to report results in a timely fashion on their web site, and in enough details so that the lessons of this taxpayer-funded experience can be viewed and learned from, world wide. Okay, fair enough. This is still pretty hairy, but suppose that we really put our brains together and come up with an improved version of this ? or some better proposal for them ? what might we anticipate would be their reaction. Among the first things we could expect to hear would be an exhaustive listing of all the reasons why this will not be possible. Hmm. But will we make any mistakes with this? * You bet we will. Inevitably and no matter how tough minded and creative we manage to be with our slimmed down non-bureaucratic process. But at worse these will be very small mistakes, and if we get it right they will also be made in the bright light of the public domain where all can see and learn from (nothing being stashed away in drawers and kept from any eventually prying eyes). * Indeed in this particular sub-set of sustainability policy and practice, we need more and more honest feedback ? and often as not we have more to learn from failure than success. But not is we are forever going to hide away the failures. On the other hand in barely more than one month the Kyoto Protocol becomes operational and this at a time when virtually all of our cites are moving steadily and without a murmur of apology in the opposite direction. Here is a chance to get the ball rolling in the right direction and with minimum delay. There you have it, a modest proposal for next week?s meeting, and an equally modest challenge to you all to do better. And once again please be sure that all of this will be conveyed to the meeting in one form or another. And you and turn will be kept informed of what if anything happens next. Eric Britton The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org Free call via Skype.com. Click here. (callto://ericbritton) Free video/voice conferencing: http://newmobilitypartners.org The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at http://ecoplan.org Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France E: postmaster@newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323 --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050118/3d41a9e9/attachment-0001.html From gigi_goreng at hotmail.com Wed Jan 19 04:42:54 2005 From: gigi_goreng at hotmail.com (ria hutabarat) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:42:54 +0000 Subject: [sustran] Re: WorldTransport Forum TRB session: "TransportationandLogistical Challenges Associated with the Tsunami Disaster" Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050118/bd6bfed3/attachment.html From sri at giaspn01.vsnl.net.in Wed Jan 19 13:50:00 2005 From: sri at giaspn01.vsnl.net.in (Systems Research Institute) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:20:00 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Plain-speaking on carsharing strategies and support inBrussels next week In-Reply-To: <005901c4fd70$67a11170$6501a8c0@jazz> References: <005901c4fd70$67a11170$6501a8c0@jazz> Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.0.20050119101547.02634d10@giaspn01.vsnl.net.in> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050119/882df406/attachment.html From litman at vtpi.org Thu Jan 20 23:52:20 2005 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:52:20 -0800 Subject: [sustran] New Report On Transport Trends Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20050120065211.03b050d8@mail.highspeedplus.com> For Immediate Release: 20 January 2005 For more information: Todd Litman, . "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be: Changing Trends And Their Implications For Transport Planning," by Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (http://www.vtpi.org/future.pdf) New report indicates increasing importance of transportation system diversity. Abstract This report examines demographic, economic and market trends that affect travel demand, and their implications for transport planning. Motorized mobility grew tremendously during the Twentieth Century due to favorable demographic and economic conditions. But the factors that caused this growth are unlikely to continue. Per capita vehicle ownership and mileage have started to decline, while demand for alternatives such as walking, cycling, public transit and telework is increasing. This indicates that future transport demand will be increasingly diverse. Transport planning can reflect these shifts by increasing support for alternative modes. Study Conclusions Between 1900 and 2000 per capita vehicle travel increased by an order of magnitude due to favorable technical, demographic and economic trends. However, this study indicates that these trends are beginning to change. Toward the end of the Century per capita automobile travel stopped growing in the U.S., and started to decline after 2000. This decline is likely to continue due to factors discussed in this report. An increasing portion of the population will need or prefer to rely on alternative modes such as walking, cycling, ridesharing, public transit, telework and delivery services. Automobile transport will continue to be important, but the role of other modes will increase. Transportation professionals should take these trends into account when making strategic decisions. We should plan for a mature transport system, with less emphasis on roadway system expansion and more emphasis on improving transport system efficiency and diversity. For example, if we start developing a new suburban highway now, it will be completed about the time that most Baby Boomers retire, fuel prices rise significantly, and consumers increasingly value walkable neighborhoods. It may be better to anticipate these trends by investing resources in alternative modes and creating less automobile-dependent communities. Although this paper investigates transport patterns in wealthier, developed countries, the analysis has important implications for lower-income, developing countries. Sincerely, Todd Litman, Director Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity" 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 Email: litman@vtpi.org Website: http://www.vtpi.org From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Jan 22 00:01:23 2005 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:01:23 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Plain-speaking on carsharing: strategies and support for Brussels next week Message-ID: <00a401c4ffca$19004020$6501a8c0@jazz> Subject: Plain-speaking on carsharing: strategies and support for Brussels next week Background: See recent messages with above subject in World Carshare Forum via http://worldcarshare.com . Dear Sustran Friends, I am sharing this with you as much because I believe this ardently non- or anti-bureaucratic approach has a place in the move toward sustainability, as in the belief that carsharing may indeed have a role in certain situation in the Sustran region. * * * The last thing I want to do is to impose upon or in any way quiet this very useful exchange, but let me pop in here a few other points which have come up in some of our phone discussion in the last days that I think are critical and which were not set out in the short note that I posted in order to get this discussion into gear. Once again, quick bullets for now: 1. These grants are not in my view intended to finance so much new start-ups as to help projects and groups who are already well into the learning and deployment cycle to carry out some important, well defined next steps. Steve Cousins in a Skype conversation on this today refers to this as ?Second Round Carshare Support?. Exactly. Let me give just one or two ideas on this, but those of you are working in this every day will have many more. a. An existing carshare operation has gotten along in its early phases with a manual support system, but they are now scaling up and need to make a best choice about how to do this, without just laying on their backs and exposing their throats to the first supplier they find on the web. I am willing to bet that with a bit of help from our network, they could design a terrific program to make the right choice and then adapt it for their specific situation. What we might ask of them in turn, is to report both their procedures, choices, criteria, and result on their or some other website so that we can all profit from their experience. b. Or a pilot project for an existing CSO on the move, to build around the city communications attractive signed carshare parking areas which provide clear visible clues that carsharing exists in our city. c. Etc. etc. 2. Incidentally, it is quite possible that once a group has made good use of a first grant, they might be an excellent candidate for another grant once they have shown their mettle (and assuming of course that their performance and their project justify such an allocation). 3. Even for a new start-up ? where of course they need to develop a lot more than our famous two page initial summary as several of the group have pointed out most clearly ? the simple fact of applying for one of these little grants, following the basic models that we can provide now after so many years of experience, good and less good, and putting their project and plans out for open discussions on the network, can already be a most useful step.. even if there is no money for them in the earliest stages. They will be able to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the network, and even if we have to say no to them? I would imagine that it would not need to be a ?no never?, but rather ?No at this point, because here are some things to which you need to give your attention. a. BTW, this is where it comes in handy to be able to pay, as planned, our network associates when they chose to give this some time in an individual critical evaluation. Good will is great, but a little help from a decent honorarium can encourage quite nicely (especially when it invokes something that you are really interested in anyway). 3. And while I do not by any means see this as a research program, nor as a support for more research on carsharing (thank you Dirk), there is still plenty of room for good guidelines and procedural guides based on solid experience. I am confident that if the network were to be presented with a couple of strong proposals in key areas, they would be inclined to give them a sympathetic look. 4. I am pleased that no one has yet come down to hard on what I think of as the ?no brainer? aspect of this approach, i.e., building the program around grants of one size only rather than having to take it upon ourselves or some ?very smart? secretariat or bureaucratic function to figure out how much here, how much there etc. 5. Brendan Finn brilliantly writes: ?I suggest that you ask Brussels for ?5 million over three years, with the big commitment in year 1. Of this ?4 million is for the projects, ?1 million is for setting them up, evaluation and analysis, and dissemination. For the ?4 million, you get about 60 projects around Europe, done as sub-contracts.? Precisely. 6. By the way, and in closing, this brings up the point as to how can cities and groups in the EU learn most and make the best contribution in this area, not least bearing in mind that in barely four weeks Kyoto comes into effect, and our cities here and world wide are no where near to even starting on the agenda which is needed if we are to reverse direction from the utter non-sustainability which is our current path. Here are a couple of ideas as grist for the mill on this: a. If I had to decide about this right now, I would set out the following rough rules of thumb for the ?EU/Kyoto Carshare Grant Program?. Roughly a one-third divide from ?Old Europe?, ?New Europe? (Accession countries including those who are standing in line) and the rest of the world. (I will be pleased to justify this at some point if the matter comes up.) 7. And finally, what would be our attitude if some city/groups steps forward with a strong project that may not be exactly carsharing but which could help make a real contribution for such an amount and before out network in the area of more sustainable city mobility? Well, all I can say is that we would be real dumb if we did not at the very least give it a good and sympathetic look. Because we know that the path to sustainability is one of pattern-breaks, surprises, originality, generosity and opportunism. We thus cannot afford to blind ourselves at a good New Mobility Agenda idea just because it may not exactly correspond with our intitial game plan. Now back to you. Eric Britton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050121/77a6efde/attachment-0001.html From mail at ericbritton.org Fri Jan 21 23:43:25 2005 From: mail at ericbritton.org (Eric Britton (personal)) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:43:25 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Plain-speaking on carsharing: strategies and support for Brussels next week In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008e01c4ffc7$949b5880$6501a8c0@jazz> The last thing I want to do is to impose upon or in any way quiet this very useful exchange, but let me pop in here a few other points which have come up in some of our phone discussion in the last days that I think are critical and which were not set out in the short note that I posted in order to get this discussion into gear. Once again, quick bullets for now: 1. These grants are not in my view intended to finance so much new start-ups as to help projects and groups who are already well into the learning and deployment cycle to carry out some important, well defined next steps. Steve Cousins in a Skype conversation on this today refers to this as ?Second Round Carshare Support?. Exactly. Let me give just one or two ideas on this, but those of you are working in this every day will have many more. a. An existing carshare operation has gotten along in its early phases with a manual support system, but they are now scaling up and need to make a best choice about how to do this, without just laying on their backs and exposing their throats to the first supplier they find on the web. I am willing to bet that with a bit of help from our network, they could design a terrific program to make the right choice and then adapt it for their specific situation. What we might ask of them in turn, is to report both their procedures, choices, criteria, and result on their or some other website so that we can all profit from their experience. b. Or a pilot project for an existing CSO on the move, to build around the city communications attractive signed carshare parking areas which provide clear visible clues that carsharing exists in our city. c. Etc. etc. 2. Incidentally, it is quite possible that once a group has made good use of a first grant, they might be an excellent candidate for another grant once they have shown their mettle (and assuming of course that their performance and their project justify such an allocation). 3. Even for a new start-up ? where of course they need to develop a lot more than our famous two page initial summary as several of the group have pointed out most clearly ? the simple fact of applying for one of these little grants, following the basic models that we can provide now after so many years of experience, good and less good, and putting their project and plans out for open discussions on the network, can already be a most useful step.. even if there is no money for them in the earliest stages. They will be able to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the network, and even if we have to say no to them? I would imagine that it would not need to be a ?no never?, but rather ?No at this point, because here are some things to which you need to give your attention. a. BTW, this is where it comes in handy to be able to pay, as planned, our network associates when they chose to give this some time in an individual critical evaluation. Good will is great, but a little help from a decent honorarium can encourage quite nicely (especially when it invokes something that you are really interested in anyway). 4. And while I do not by any means see this as a research program, nor as a support for more research on carsharing (thank you Dirk), there is still plenty of room for good guidelines and procedural guides based on solid experience. I am confident that if the network were to be presented with a couple of strong proposals in key areas, they would be inclined to give them a sympathetic look. 5. I am pleased that no one has yet come down to hard on what I think of as the ?no brainer? aspect of this approach, i.e., building the program around grants of one size only rather than having to take it upon ourselves or some ?very smart? secretariat or bureaucratic function to figure out how much here, how much there etc. 6. Brendan Finn brilliantly writes: ?I suggest that you ask Brussels for ?5 million over three years, with the big commitment in year 1. Of this ?4 million is for the projects, ?1 million is for setting them up, evaluation and analysis, and dissemination. For the ?4 million, you get about 60 projects around Europe, done as sub-contracts.? Precisely. 7. By the way, and in closing, this brings up the point as to how can cities and groups in the EU learn most and make the best contribution in this area, not least bearing in mind that in barely four weeks Kyoto comes into effect, and our cities here and world wide are no where near to even starting on the agenda which is needed if we are to reverse direction from the utter non-sustainability which is our current path. Here are a couple of ideas as grist for the mill on this: a. If I had to decide about this right now, I would set out the following rough rules of thumb for the ?EU/Kyoto Carshare Grant Program?. Roughly a one-third divide from ?Old Europe?, ?New Europe? (Accession countries including those who are standing in line) and the rest of the world. (I will be pleased to justify this at some point if the matter comes up.) 8. And finally, what would be our attitude if some city/groups steps forward with a strong project that may not be exactly carsharing but which could help make a real contribution for such an amount and before out network in the area of more sustainable city mobility? Well, all I can say is that we would be real dumb if we did not at the very least give it a good and sympathetic look. Because we know that the path to sustainability is one of pattern-breaks, surprises, originality, generosity and opportunism. We thus cannot afford to blind ourselves at a good New Mobility Agenda idea just because it may not exactly correspond with our intitial game plan. Now back to you. Eric Britton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050121/e5f65815/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Sat Jan 22 17:26:32 2005 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:26:32 +0100 Subject: [sustran] University Sustainable Transport Action Group (STAG) Message-ID: <007c01c5005c$19d3f680$6501a8c0@jazz> Reference: University Sustainable Transport Action Group (STAG) It occurs to me that it might be useful if we were in some sort of efficient contact with this group. Can anyone here introduce us? Kind thanks, Eric Britton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050122/405c0d1c/attachment.html From sujit at vsnl.com Sun Jan 23 03:49:01 2005 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:19:01 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Flyovers (Elevated Roads) Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.0.20050122235202.02db17e0@mail.vsnl.com> 22 January 2005 Dear Friends, As a group advocating Urban Sustainable Transport, we have been opposing the policy of needless road expansion and building of flyovers for "reducing congestion and air pollution". However old habits die hard and policy makers continue to have blind faith in continuing to build flyovers in cities (almost all medium and large cities fall in this category) that are experiencing an explosion of personal auto vehicles (two and four wheelers) , even when the cost of flyovers are astronomical, they destroy the cityscape, create hurdles in the path of public transport buses, encourage greater use of personal auto vehicles and thereby increase road congestion and pollution even more. We would like to know from friends in SUSTRAN if you could direct us to any case studies, reports, or research on the effect of flyovers (elevated roads) on traffic congestion and air pollution in urban areas. We are not opposed to the concept of flyovers. Where appropriate (to cross a railway line or to save heritage/core city areas from being cut up by roads etc., but we question the effectiveness of flyovers in reducing air pollution and road congestion especially in Asian cities where the latent demand for auto vehicles is very high, and auto vehicle growth is over 10% per annum, because any increase in road surface immediately results in greater "use" of personal vehicles which is made worse by "generated traffic". Will appreciate your inputs. With regards, -- Sujit Patwardhan Parisar/PTTF Pune India ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan PARISAR "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411007 Telephone: +91 20 255 37955 Email: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sustainable Urban Transport --------------------------------------------------- Sujit Patwardhan Member PTTF Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum, c/o Parisar, "Yamuna", ICS Colony,Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 Tel: +91 20 25537955 Cell: +91 98220 26627 Email: contact@pttf.net, sujit@vsnl.com ----------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050123/323776e1/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Jan 25 22:46:08 2005 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:46:08 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Message to the European Commission - Do you have one? Message-ID: <00f001c502e4$3fd6d4d0$6501a8c0@jazz> Reference: Creating a climate of Public Entrepreneurship at the European Commission As you may recall, on Thursday and Friday of this week we have the "Keys to Carsharing: Moving the City of Tomorrow" conference of the European Commission's moses program in Brussels (http://213.170.188.3/moses/index.asp?page=96 for meeting details). And on this occasion, I would like to invite each of you if you have any messages that you might wish to convey to the Commission as to . . . 1. How can the Commission and the Union more generally mobilize to provide more on-street effective near-term (since in the long run we all are dead ;-) support of carsharing in Europe in the two years directly ahead? 2. Might they do well to consider what they can do for carsharing more generally (i.e., world wide)? Or just limit themselves to Europe? 3. And in this same spirit, should this (a) be the focus of a single focused program (i.e., strictly for carsharing alone)? Or might it best be nested in a broader program of aggressive point support for sustainable mobility initiatives? 4. And finally, if they were ever to be so bold as to adopt some variant of our proposed one-size fast-turnaround Local Grant Program, what would YOU and your colleagues specifically do with a no-fault fifty thousand Euro grant that could either(a) make a major difference in your operation and city, or (b) more generally for the carsharing movement in Europe and beyond. What I have at the back of my mind in this is to see what if anything we might be able to do to encourage what I think of as more aggressive (and more risky) "Public Entrepreneurship" approaches to making good things happen in the all too small world of sustainable mobility, as opposed to the more "prudent" bureau-administrative approaches which are the flavor of the day. I shall be pleased to act as your messenger and do my best to ensure that your voice is heard ion Brussels. Eric Britton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050125/3bfda72b/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Wed Jan 26 00:22:06 2005 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (EcoPlan, Paris) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:22:06 +0100 Subject: [sustran] new communications tool for sustainable transport world wide Message-ID: <012201c502f1$aeded460$6501a8c0@jazz> Dear Sustran Friends, We are in the process of piecing together a new communications tool in support of our international exchanges, consensus building and open peer support program under the New Mobility Agenda, to which I would now like to invite you to make submissions to inform the world about (a) the interesting and important work of you and your associates/programs, as well as (b) your ideas more generally for how to advance the sustainability agenda in your cities and beyond. If you go to the Agenda at http://newmobility.org and click A Day at the Office on the top menu, you will be able to see this tool at work. (A quick visit to the "Blog use hints" link in the top box may also prove helpful to get your going smoothly on this.) The idea, I would suggest, is to create a neat "one page" (say 750 words max) summary statement introducing your program, raison d'etre, key dates, and enough so that the reader will quickly grasp who you are and why she might want to know more about your work. Which you will then oblige by proving links, both to your website and perhaps some links to media articles or a few reports. (My guess is that most of this information will already be readily at hand in most cases, meaning that the challenge is mainly one of assembling, editing and giving the whole thing some good punch so that it engages the busy reader.) Moreover, I would want to cross-post this information carefully, including to the New Mobility Agenda sites and some others of our international colleagues referenced there. To conclude: I very much think that the world needs to know more about the work and approaches of these "Third Voice" transportation/environment groups around the world. They have to know who we are, what we stand for, and where to go for more, if we are to make an impact. I invite you to start with a couple of draft entries to get us going. We can then fine tune and once we have our good template, we can get this on line and working for us all. With all good wishes, Eric Britton PS. Is this an original idea? Certainly not, in fact if you go to our World Resources Inventory (also on the top menu) you will see very brief 'profiles' and web references on more than five hundred leading groups world wide. But we feel that a nicely clustered listing of groups targeting specifically the sustainable mobility/social justice agenda is going to find many uses. I hope you agree and that we shall be hearing from you. The New Mobility Agenda is at http://newmobility.org To call free via Skype.com. Click here. (callto://ericbritton) Free video/voice conferencing: http://newmobilitypartners.org The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at http://ecoplan.org Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France E: postmaster@newmobility.org T: +331 4326 1323 --- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free. Checked by Norton Anti-Virus The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050125/d0e262c0/attachment.html From cpardo at cable.net.co Mon Jan 31 15:46:58 2005 From: cpardo at cable.net.co (Carlos F. Pardo) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:46:58 +0700 Subject: [sustran] [SPAM SOSPECHOSO] SUTP updated website In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0IB500CGIDQVWW30@epicac.cable.net.co> Dear sustran members, After some months of thinking about a better way to give people access to the SUTP website and the information in it, we have developed a new version including various modifications. Since we are still in our "beta version", we would like to ask you to access the webpage at www.sutp.org and give us your comments by mailing sutp@sutp.org . Major modifications include the following: 1. Reorganization of website topics 2. Easier access to documents 3. New sourcebook webpage 4. New "transport web links" webpage 5. Expanded latest news section 6. New GTZ transport photo CD webpage and photos. 7. Site map accesible from any webpage We would be more than glad to receive your comments and suggestions. It would also be of great importance if you could add a link in your website to our project, as we could also do the same for yours. In the near future, the webpage will also have a section for "online training" on sustainable urban transport, since we're developing the modules (currently in PDF versions and available in various languages) in HTML format. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo Project Coordinator GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP-Asia) Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP ESCAP UN Building Rajadamnern Nok Rd. Bangkok 10200, Thailand Tel: +66 (0) 2 - 288 2576 Fax: +66 (0) 2 - 280 6042 Mobile: +66 (0) 1 - 772 4727 e-mail: carlos.pardo@sutp.org Website: www.sutp.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050131/b8f376c3/attachment-0001.html