[sustran] "Highjacking sustainable transport"

[Eric.Britton]

"Highjacking sustainable transport" - What a great and useful phrase!
One that we will do well to keep in our sights as proposals and
propositions that try to associate with the label step forth. Thanks
Rory.

 

Which gets me back to Fair Transport and our idea for a set of Jacobs
Rules "tests" for sustainability and fairness, on which up to now we
have had no concrete feedback and commentary. So I wonder if I might
encourage those of you who care about these things enough to take the
time to work your way down this provisional short list, and then to
share your comments and suggestions with me and us with a view to
turning it into a more bullet proof and practically useful working tool.
I must say that I have been trying to make it shorter, but at the same
time I think it is important that we make sure there are no huge
loopholes here. 

 

So there you have our latest on this. And thanks for giving this your
time and thought.  Your reward? Well you know that.

org 

 

 

Fair Transport -- and Jacobs Rules 

 

"Fair Transport" targets is a new policy model for the sector, which
seeks to build on and extend the somewhat abstract and often ambiguous
concept of sustainable transport or sustainable mobility. The specific
idea behind Fair Transport is to move beyond generalities and instead
come up with a number of specific criteria, sign posts and tests to
guide investments, decisions and actions in the transport field, and in
particular those that are funded through taxpayer contributions or which
require public support or authorization.  

 

The shortlist that follows, while still provisional and subject to
review and comment, is our present best-stab at providing such a check
list. We are convinced that no public or publicly supported projects
should be carried out without these tests being applied and the results
made openly and publicly available in time to make, support or
eventually block or modify the go-ahead decisions that traditionally
have been made more or less in isolation in central places.

 

1.	Human and social impacts: Requires as the very first priority a
detailed and mature understanding of how the proposed new, improved or
restructured transport investment, policy or action is going to impact
on "we, ordinary people, step by step in our daily lives".  Low income
groups need as a priority excellent walking, cycling and bus service
provision and the means to get rural produce to market. 
2.	Near term improvements: The Fair Transport approach places heavy
emphasis on projects and policies which lead to measurable near term
improvements within the electoral cycle of the decision makers in place.
(say less than 2-4 years to achievement).   All such targeted
improvements must, however, be within the broader strategic (that is
long term) policy frame as set out here and mandated by the concepts of
sustainable development..
3.	Non-Transport Solutions: Recognizes that at least a good half of
the solutions needed to deal with problems or insufficiencies that in a
first instance are identified with 'transport shortcomings' must in fact
involve non-transport solutions . This means that the policy and
decision makers need to have full knowledge of these parts of the
solution set as well (typical examples being locational and land use
changes, public spaces, TDM, time management, mobility substitutes,
etc.) 
4.	Full Access for All: All projects much provide or lead to full,
fair and safe access to people of all ages, conditions of health,
economic situation and in terms of where they live and work. Convenient
rural accessibility to all services and functions is critical. 
5.	Modal choice: Provides full and fair consideration of all forms
of mobility (human-powered, public transport, intermediate/shared
transport forms, motorized private transport) in the areas of planning,
financing  and infrastructure provision, maintenance and operation - but
subjecting them to strict consideration of lowest life-cycle CO2
emissions, least polluting, most equitable, most cost effective, and
most resource economical. Given the fact that the majority of people are
not car owner/drivers (or should not be), non "own-car" solutions should
be heavily favored
6.	Cost effectiveness: (a) Represents the cheapest way to get the
(full) job done to the key targeted specifications (those being human)
while (b) also fully serving non-drivers and lower income groups. 
7.	Gender, Women and Children: Gives full consideration to critical
(and heretofore generally neglected) gender differences and needs at all
stages of the discussion, planning, and decision process.  This can only
be assured through full representation and participation of female
leaders and active participants. Thus no project should be allowed to go
ahead unless there is a strong plurality at least of female
participation and leadership in the decision stage.
8.	Packages of Measures: the Fair Transport paradigm will be
distinguished from the old ways of planning and making investments by
the fact that it will in most places be characterized by very large
numbers of often quite small projects and initiatives. And by many more
actors and participants. One of the main challenges of an effective Fair
Transport policy will be to find ways to see these various  measures as
interactive synergistic and mutually supporting projects within a
unified greater whole.  This is a significant challenge to our planners
at all levels.
9.	New Actors/Entrepreneurship:  The transport sector has
traditionally been heavily regulated in ways in which new approaches and
new actors are more or less actively discouraged or blocked. A Fair
Transport policy will create a much more open attitude and support
structure for innovation, from the private and public sectors and from
volunteer and community groups.
10.	Small project strategies and management: On the understanding
that what is needed is large numbers of small projects each doing their
own job, requires that at least 50% of the total investment budget be
allocated to small projects (criteria?).  These projects should be
generated through local actions and participation.
11.	Large projects: Suggests that any large project (say more than
$100k) be carefully inspected to ensure that its most important human
and social (this includes economic and environmental) objectives cannot
be better met by one or a set of smaller projects or policies. 
12.	Public spaces and community: Serves to improve quantity,
quality, and social usefulness of public spaces, thereby reinforcing
human contacts, sense of community, local and regional culture 
13.	 New Tools: The traditional toolset (and mindset) of the
planners and policy makers in the sector need to be dramatically
expanded and more fully integrated in all project stages. A very
incomplete list would include direct involvement of behavioral
psychologists gender specialists, public space experts, and new forms of
pubic participation and interactive communications. (This list is
incomplete and intended here only for the purposes of giving a first
indication.)
14.	Open public reporting:  All planning and project information,
technical analysis, cost information, key parameters, etc. should be
publicly available in a convenient transparent form which is make
available both locally and nationally and to the international community
with expertise and longer term interests in these areas.

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Rory McMullan Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 12:53 PM To:
NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Paris at slower speeds with cleaner
exhaust, Fair?

 

Perhaps this is part of the fair transport debate. Although cleaner
fuels are a great advance and should be applauded and promoted, I do
have the feeling that the auto, green fuel, and auto accessory companies
are highjacking the sustainable transport and environmentally friendly
transport issues.

 

I believe demand management should be the priority for the movement,
combined with the issues of smart growth and accessibility. One aim of
sustainable transport must be to reduce the overall need for travel by
powered vehicles, in the interest not only of reduced emissions and
cleaner air, but also for safer streets and more livable equitable
cities.

 

Rory McMullan, - http://www.urbangreenfair.org.uk/

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060513/4a3d9c90/attachment.html