From edelman at greenidea.info Wed Jul 4 01:36:43 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:36:43 +0200 Subject: [sustran] China 'buried smog death finding' - World Bank complies, maybe. Message-ID: <468A7B1B.2090208@greenidea.info> China 'buried smog death finding' *The World Bank is alleged to have cut from a report research that suggests pollution causes hundreds of thousands of premature deaths annually in China.* The move followed pressure from Beijing, which believes the material is too sensitive and could lead to social unrest, said the UK's Financial Times. It said information was cut from the forthcoming report after requests from two Chinese government departments. The World Bank told the BBC the final version had not yet been finalised. But a statement added: "[A preliminary] version of the report did not include some of the issues that are still under discussion." The Financial Times said the Bank report, entitled 'Cost of Pollution in China', found up to 760,000 people die prematurely each year in China because of air and water pollution. High levels of air pollution in China's cities leads to 350,000-400,000 premature deaths, it said. Another 300,000 die because of poor-quality air indoors. The newspaper article, quoting World Bank advisers and Chinese officials, also said research showing that there are 60,000 premature deaths each year because of poor-quality water was also left out of the report. *'Social unrest'* "The World Bank was told that it could not publish this information. It was too sensitive and could cause social unrest," one adviser to the study told the Financial Times. It said the bank "reluctantly" agreed to take out the sensitive information. The World Bank told the BBC that information for the report, which is being compiled in conjunction with the Chinese government, was still under review. A World Bank spokeswoman refused to say whether or not statistics about premature deaths were amongst the information taken out of the initial version. Despite the apparent dispute over figures, the preliminary World Bank report published in March suggests air and water pollution do lead to an increased number of deaths in China. It also says the total cost of air and water pollution in the country amounts to about 5.8% of gross domestic product. According to the Financial Times, China's State Environmental Protection Administration (Sepa) and its health ministry asked the World Bank to cut out the reference to the specific number of pollution-related deaths. The BBC could not reach anyone at Sepa to comment on the issue. But the government department is certainly aware of China's pollution problems. Last month it said about 60% of Chinese cities regularly suffer from air pollution and have no centralised sewage treatment facilities. The final World Bank report is due to be released soon. The organisation has previously said that China is home to 16 of the world's 20 most-polluted cities. -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From guillen at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp Thu Jul 5 17:25:18 2007 From: guillen at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (guillen at sk.tsukuba.ac.jp) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 17:25:18 +0900 (JST) Subject: [sustran] E-Jeeps Message-ID: <3705.130.158.101.123.1183623918.squirrel@pub.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Hello, I just want to share news re:environment- friendly public transport mode from the Philippines :) Cheers, Marie Danielle V. Guillen Urban Transportation Lab. Graduate School of Systems & Information Engineering University of Tsukuba Tsukuba City, Japan ======================================= Jeepney electrifies Makati folk By DJ Yap Philippine Daily Inquirer Last updated 06:31am (Mla time) 07/05/2007 MANILA, Philippines -- On their first excursion in the streets of the metrop olis Wednesday, the two brightly painted ?e-jeepneys? did not roar at all. They did not even purr. For that matter, they did not hiss, or cough, or sputter, like all public utility jeepneys do. Instead, these Earth-friendly cousins of the jeepney wove their way around the Makati central business district quietly -- and with nary a puff of smoke from their glossy behinds. Costing P500,000 each and running on batteries charged via electrical sockets overnight, the 12-seater e-jeepneys had a test-run along Ayala Avenue as part of a study on the feasibility of using this mode of transport on a metro-wide scale. And from Wednesday?s demonstration under the hot mid-morning sun, city offi cials, environmentalists, business executives, and even pedestrians and comm uters were of one mind: They liked what they saw. ?Imagine the jeepney as a purely electric machine that belches nothing, mak es no noise, has a high headroom, comfortable seating and large windows,? S olar Electric Co. (Solarco) president Panch Puckett said. ?You may even pass the mike around and enjoy sing-alongs while on your way to work,? he added. Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay, who was among the first to drive the e-jeepney, described the experience as ?like riding a golf cart.? Push button gets it going ?It?s very easy to ride. Because it?s lighter, the jeepney drivers who ar e so used to the heavy diesel engines will feel a little weird at first, but it only takes a short while to get used to it,? Puckett said. ?You do not hear the engine running. It?s very silent and there?s even a radio for you to check if it?s on,? Joey Salgado, the city?s information and community relations department chief, said. And how to start the vehicle? ?You just push a button,? Salgado said. As the e-jeepneys traversed the busy section of Ayala Avenue, pedestrians on the sidewalks stopped to watch them whiz past, trailed by photographers and cameramen. Drivers on the other lane rolled down their windows to watch the convoy, whose route started from the corner of Paseo de Roxas and Ayala Avenue toward the G3 Park in front of the Makati Shangri-La Hotel, and back. For Binay, the e-jeepneys represent the future of road travel in the financial capital. Nationwide production ?We hope that we can introduce the electric jeepneys in other cities nation wide,? he said during a brief program after the test run. ?Electric-powered jeepneys are set to revolutionize the Philippines? most recognizable icon,? Greenpeace campaign director Von Hernandez said. The e-jeepneys are a venture of Green Renewable Independent Power Producer Inc., which sprang from Greenpeace and other groups, and Solarco, which in turn is a part of GRIPP. Alternative to pollution The campaign is part of GRIPP?s Climate Friendly Cities Project, a multi-pr onged program for mitigating climate change that promotes transport and wast e management initiatives through renewable energy-based technology. ?The e-jeepneys aim to demonstrate that there are climate-friendly alternat ives to the current polluting modes of public transportation in the Philippi nes,? said Athena Ronquillo, GRIPP chair and lead proponent of the e-jeepne y initiative. ?The iconic jeepney remains but without wasteful and carbon emitting diesel , and while providing increased incomes to the vehicles? drivers,? she add ed. Celebrities like Amanda Griffin, Juddah Paolo, Richard Gutierrez and Georgina Wilson, who all support Greenpeace, also graced the affair. ?Considering it has no gas tank (just a battery compartment), the e-jeepney runs purely on stored electricity, resulting in a much quieter and fumeless trip,? Puckett said. ?Diesel-powered jeepneys actually waste more fuel while idling. In the case of the e-jeepney, when the driver steps on the break, the engine really sto ps. It doesn?t idle,? he said. Long-term prospects The battery that makes an e-jeepney run has a two-year warranty. The e-jeepney can run 120 km on a single charge of eight hours, Puckett said. ?If the driver travels at an average speed of 40 kph nonstop, that translat es to a three-hour working day. But the stops can extend his hours because t he battery is not used up,? Puckett said. Binay said the city government and its partners had begun talks with major s takeholders, particularly leaders of jeepney drivers? associations, about t he long-term prospects of the project. ?We have no intention of phasing out anybody in this business,? Puckett sa id. ?This is just to keep people aware and open their minds that there are alte rnative engines -- we?re not talking about bodies but engines -- in a marke t that can clean the environment,? he added. Break from the past On Wednesday, Binay signed an agreement for the leasing by the city of the two e-jeepneys from GRIPP. If the test run proves feasible, the city will lease more units, officials said. Binay said they were also looking into the economics of the project. ?If the e-jeepney can help increase the income of jeepney drivers by removi ng their expenditure for diesel, then all the more reason for us to push ahe ad with the project,? he said. For Puckett, the introduction of the e-jeepney means ?we have no choice but to improve our lives according to these innovations because everything just keeps getting better and better.? He said: ?The e-jeepney will definitely change the way we think, design, dr ive, ride, and experience the mode of transportation that has become so much a part of being Filipino.? From rivera at iss.nl Thu Jul 5 22:06:09 2007 From: rivera at iss.nl (Roselle Rivera) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 15:06:09 +0200 Subject: [sustran] e-jeepney in the Philippines Message-ID: The jeepney in the Philippines, is a major public transport service in the country. It evolved from the US military jeep, and today has become much longer than its original form in the twentieth century. Today, it carries about 17-20 people while it plies the major & smaller streets around the country Hopefully no one will kill this electric car. E-jeepney electrifies Makati folk By DJ Yap Inquirer Last updated 06:31am (Mla time) 07/05/2007 MANILA, Philippines -- On their first excursion in the streets of the metropolis Wednesday, the two brightly painted "e-jeepneys" did not roar at all. They did not even purr. For that matter, they did not hiss, or cough, or sputter, like all public utility jeepneys do. Instead, these Earth-friendly cousins of the jeepney wove their way around the Makati central business district quietly -- and with nary a puff of smoke from their glossy behinds. Costing P500,000 each and running on batteries charged via electrical sockets overnight, the 12-seater e-jeepneys had a test-run along Ayala Avenue as part of a study on the feasibility of using this mode of transport on a metro-wide scale. And from Wednesday's demonstration under the hot mid-morning sun, city officials, environmentalists, business executives, and even pedestrians and commuters were of one mind: They liked what they saw. "Imagine the jeepney as a purely electric machine that belches nothing, makes no noise, has a high headroom, comfortable seating and large windows," Solar Electric Co. (Solarco) president Panch Puckett said. "You may even pass the mike around and enjoy sing-alongs while on your way to work," he added. Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay, who was among the first to drive the e-jeepney, described the experience as "like riding a golf cart." Push button gets it going "It's very easy to ride. Because it's lighter, the jeepney drivers who are so used to the heavy diesel engines will feel a little weird at first, but it only takes a short while to get used to it," Puckett said. "You do not hear the engine running. It's very silent and there's even a radio for you to check if it's on," Joey Salgado, the city's information and community relations department chief, said. And how to start the vehicle? "You just push a button," Salgado said. As the e-jeepneys traversed the busy section of Ayala Avenue, pedestrians on the sidewalks stopped to watch them whiz past, trailed by photographers and cameramen. Drivers on the other lane rolled down their windows to watch the convoy, whose route started from the corner of Paseo de Roxas and Ayala Avenue toward the G3 Park in front of the Makati Shangri-La Hotel, and back. For Binay, the e-jeepneys represent the future of road travel in the financial capital. Nationwide production "We hope that we can introduce the electric jeepneys in other cities nationwide," he said during a brief program after the test run. "Electric-powered jeepneys are set to revolutionize the Philippines' most recognizable icon," Greenpeace campaign director Von Hernandez said. The e-jeepneys are a venture of Green Renewable Independent Power Producer Inc., which sprang from Greenpeace and other groups, and Solarco, which in turn is a part of GRIPP. Alternative to pollution The campaign is part of GRIPP's Climate Friendly Cities Project, a multi-pronged program for mitigating climate change that promotes transport and waste management initiatives through renewable energy-based technology. "The e-jeepneys aim to demonstrate that there are climate-friendly alternatives to the current polluting modes of public transportation in the Philippines," said Athena Ronquillo, GRIPP chair and lead proponent of the e-jeepney initiative. "The iconic jeepney remains but without wasteful and carbon emitting diesel, and while providing increased incomes to the vehicles' drivers," she added. Celebrities like Amanda Griffin, Juddah Paolo, Richard Gutierrez and Georgina Wilson, who all support Greenpeace, also graced the affair. "Considering it has no gas tank (just a battery compartment), the e-jeepney runs purely on stored electricity, resulting in a much quieter and fumeless trip," Puckett said. "Diesel-powered jeepneys actually waste more fuel while idling. In the case of the e-jeepney, when the driver steps on the break, the engine really stops. It doesn't idle," he said. Long-term prospects The battery that makes an e-jeepney run has a two-year warranty. The e-jeepney can run 120 km on a single charge of eight hours, Puckett said. "If the driver travels at an average speed of 40 kph nonstop, that translates to a three-hour working day. But the stops can extend his hours because the battery is not used up," Puckett said. Binay said the city government and its partners had begun talks with major stakeholders, particularly leaders of jeepney drivers' associations, about the long-term prospects of the project. "We have no intention of phasing out anybody in this business," Puckett said. "This is just to keep people aware and open their minds that there are alternative engines -- we're not talking about bodies but engines -- in a market that can clean the environment," he added. Break from the past On Wednesday, Binay signed an agreement for the leasing by the city of the two e-jeepneys from GRIPP. If the test run proves feasible, the city will lease more units, officials said. Binay said they were also looking into the economics of the project. "If the e-jeepney can help increase the income of jeepney drivers by removing their expenditure for diesel, then all the more reason for us to push ahead with the project," he said. For Puckett, the introduction of the e-jeepney means "we have no choice but to improve our lives according to these innovations because everything just keeps getting better and better." He said: "The e-jeepney will definitely change the way we think, design, drive, ride, and experience the mode of transportation that has become so much a part of being Filipino." ROSELLE LEAH K RIVERA PhD Fellow Human Resource and Local Development Staff Group Institute of Social Studies Kortenaerkade 12 2518 AX The Hague, Netherlands Office Tel: +31 70 4260428 Fax: +31 70 4260507 Mobile: +31 627315444 Please refer to: http://www.iss.nl/content/view/full/2873 for ISS? email disclaimer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070705/1a4c7348/attachment.html From ericbruun at earthlink.net Fri Jul 6 00:51:28 2007 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:51:28 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: e-jeepney in the Philippines Message-ID: <16827683.1183650688538.JavaMail.root@elwamui-sweet.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070705/67ef2fa7/attachment.html From chuwasg at yahoo.com Fri Jul 6 15:12:00 2007 From: chuwasg at yahoo.com (chuwa) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 23:12:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] UN Calls for Pedal Power to Reduce Environmental Damage/ Message-ID: <20070706061200.4321.qmail@web36914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> KUALA LUMPUR - More bicycle riding and other lifestyle changes are urgently needed to reduce climate-altering carbon emissions that are damaging Asia?s health and could also threaten the economy, the World Health Organisation said Monday. ?So far the impact is on the health of the people. If the trend continues, it may have an impact on the economy,? said Shigeru Omi, WHO?s regional director for the Western Pacific. Omi proposed greater use of bicycles, the use of clean energy sources, and tax incentives to reduce carbon emissions. ?? we have to adopt lifestyles that are not only healthy but also environment friendly such as reducing the use of private vehicles, walking more or riding bicycles,? he said in a speech. read more: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070702094058.h5dld9nd&show_article=1&cat=0 Chu Wa -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What would happen when car advertisements come with health/environment warning, just like the cigarette? The future would be brighter when bicycle industry is bigger than car industry. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070705/38b3c84d/attachment.html From edelman at greenidea.info Fri Jul 6 17:02:02 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:02:02 +0200 Subject: [sustran] China's eco-city faces growth challenge Message-ID: <468DF6FA.8010303@greenidea.info> *China's plans to build an "eco-city" of 500,000 people on a huge island in the Yangtze Delta have been widely heralded. But local planners seem to have different priorities from the world leaders who have flocked to see the project. * The sleepy island of Chongming lies across the Yangtze Delta from the dynamic metropolis of Shanghai, the centre of China's global ambitions. It takes an hour's ride on a slow ferry across the river - with inland cargo boats slipping by in the fog - to reach the island, which is criss-crossed with canals and fields where peasant agriculture still takes place. Chongming is the size of Manhattan, and its wetlands form one of the most important migratory bird sanctuaries in China, known as Dongtan. Currently this section of the island is deserted, except for a few visitors who make their way to the isolated nature reserve. *Demonstration city* It is here that Shanghai plans to build a demonstration eco-city which will ultimately house 500,000 people, designed by the UK engineering consultancy firm Arup. Peter Head, Arup's project director, says that the project can be a model for the world. "Significant global climate change, environmental issues, water shortages and the need for the use of cleaner and renewable energy demand the creation of a new approach to urban development," he explained in his office in Shanghai. The eco-city, to be linked to the mainland by an 18-mile long bridge-tunnel which also spans two smaller islands, will initially house between 20,000 and 50,000 people. Conventional cars will be banned in the city centre, while the plans include capturing and purifying water, waste management recycling, reducing landfills that damage the environment, and creating combined heat and power systems. Mr Head says he has been impressed by the speed and determination of the Chinese authorities, who moved at "three times the speed" of Western planning departments. China's centralised planning system has been behind the extraordinary transformation of Shanghai in the last decade into a Western-style metropolis. *Development boom* Dongtan is just one of nine new towns planned by the city of Shanghai to relieve overcrowding in a city of more than 20 million people. Shanghai also plans to relocate much of its shipbuilding industry - the largest in China - on one of these islands, making space for the WorldExpo 2010 site, while providing employment for many of the island's residents. And it plans to rehouse many of the 650,000 inhabitants of the island in modern housing, to make room for eco-tourism and eco-farming. But some observers, such as Professor Chen of Tongji University, think that the local planners are more concerned with raising the income and standard of living of the region than ensuring ecological development. They say that the new ecologically-sound housing developments may not be affordable by locals and could become suburban housing for the rich. Already many have been purchased by overseas Chinese. And they are concerned that the development of shipyards, power plants and bridge- tunnel systems may stimulate rather than retard the over-development of the region. Certainly in a tour of the project run by Shanghai's planners, growth and expansion of this quiet backwater seemed to be the central theme. *Final obstacle* But ultimately, the development of Dongtan Eco-city is dependent not on ecology but politics. After the rapid development of the master plan for the city, final authorisation of the funds for the project has stalled. Arup's Peter Head says the problem is that all big projects are now awaiting approval from the new boss of Shanghai, who was only appointed in March, following the sacking of the former Shanghai Chinese communist party chief in October on corruption charges. With China's high-profile commitment to showing it is serious about tackling environmental issues, it would be surprising if the project did not go through. But its contribution to global warming is likely to remain controversial. -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From edelman at greenidea.info Fri Jul 6 22:05:57 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:05:57 +0200 Subject: [sustran] General Motors and Chevrolet share Live Earth Greenwash Award! Message-ID: <468E3E35.2070902@greenidea.info> For everyone planning to watch and listen to Live Earth online, watch out!!, because U.S. automaker Chevrolet is one of three sponsors of the online coverage! General Motors, the parent company of Chevy, is also a major sponsor of the MTV contribution to Live Earth, titled "Break the Addiction"... and the website links directly to..... the GM-sponsored promotion for the new Transformers movie... - T -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From anupam.gupta at clsa.com Sat Jul 7 15:37:23 2007 From: anupam.gupta at clsa.com (Anupam Gupta, CLSA) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 14:37:23 +0800 Subject: [sustran] MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Message-ID: <4EAD6A7366C3C048B9304D45EE5B352E1384E9@zhkdntmb01a.int.clsa.com> MMRDA is the regional planning authority for Mumbai. It reports to the Chief Minister. MMRDA Chief, Dr. T. Chandrashekhar, has an impressive track record of work in Thane. In Mumbai, he's been caught between the politicians and the BMC. To give him credit, there's a lot of work he's had done on the roads. However - and see below - this is the first time he's taking such a strong stance. The battle between free enterprise and urban planning? I'm on the MMRDA chief's side on this one. I just hope this posturing doesn't ruin his career, because ultimately its the politicians who are in charge. Somehow I just can't see this litigation stand in court. Would love your thoughts. http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1108645 MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MUMBAI: When the Tatas launch their Rs1 lakh car some time next year, they could face a roadblock in Mumbai. T Chandrashekhar, who heads the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), the agency entrusted with the task of implementing the city's multi-crore infrastructure projects, says that he would be the first to file a public interest litigation (PIL) to stop the car's rollout in the city. Chandrashekhar believes that the city will never taste the fruits of its infrastructure investments unless it rations the use of road space and private vehicles. "The Tata car cannot be permitted (into the city) as it would choke up Mumbai. The low cost would mean that all those who can afford bikes will jump into the car segment. Then, no road space will be enough to hold the sea of vehicles. The city will be doomed," he warns. As metropolitan commissioner, Chandrashekhar is in charge of redeveloping 150 km of roads in Mumbai, which includes both the Eastern and Western Express Highways and the new east-west connecting roads - the Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road (JVLR) and the Santa Cruz-Chembur Link Road (SCLR). He wants the state government to initiate strict vehicle rationing. "Today, people are buying vehicles like they purchase chocolates. Only those citizens who have parking space must be allowed to buy cars. There should be a fixed quota of new vehicles sold in Mumbai. And like London and Paris, the city must levy a congestion tax to de-clog the roads," he adds. The MMRDA chief cautioned that in the next five years, all the roads and flyovers will be inadequate if vehicular growth is not controlled. That apart, Chandrashekhar also wants to control the influx of job-seekers in Mumbai. He wants the city to introduce a work permit regime in Mumbai. "Only those having a work permit and a valid house must be provided basic amenities like ration card, telephone connection and power supply," he said. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070707/bdf24110/attachment.html From sudhir at secon.in Sat Jul 7 16:59:48 2007 From: sudhir at secon.in (Sudhir) Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 13:29:48 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car References: <4EAD6A7366C3C048B9304D45EE5B352E1384E9@zhkdntmb01a.int.clsa.com> Message-ID: <001c01c7c06c$ca296560$d607a8c0@SA152A> Sir, It is an excellent idea (vis- a- vis Controlling Vehicle Registrations) But In the democratic country like ours (India) where there is MORE freedom such an exercise would not stand either in front of court or in front of politicians. Vehicle automobile manufactures have tremendous influence on government policies where as the NGO/technical people/experts have none. Now time has come where public own vehicles not for comfort but for status. Already in cities like Bangalore/Chennai vehicle per household is increasing to 2 whereas the household size is decreasing. Allowing a person to buy a vehicle only if he has a parking space is not a good idea as the parking facility (home) is utilised mainly in night ( when there is no traffic) whereas the vehicle would be using the roads during peak times. Congestion pricing is also not a good idea (if implemented on all the modes such as buses etc. for example BOT tolls on National Highways) as more burden is exerted on the poor people thus degrading their life further. Successful western Tools and Techniques cannot be copied directly to suit Indian conditions. They have to be modified to suit Indian conditions. Here I would like to take the liberty of exposing one such policy in our NH . In NHDP projects, there is a suggestion of having variable tolls in peak and off peak timings with substantial difference in costs. But National Highways mainly traverse through rural areas with urban centres bypassed with a peak % of 4-6%. Such a policy is not at all helpful for such National Highways. Coming to Urban centres,Supply based actions would boomerang in future. wait for 10 more years to see the quality of life in a city. Regards Sudhir ----- Original Message ----- From: Anupam Gupta, CLSA To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 12:07 PM Subject: [sustran] MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MMRDA is the regional planning authority for Mumbai. It reports to the Chief Minister. MMRDA Chief, Dr. T. Chandrashekhar, has an impressive track record of work in Thane. In Mumbai, he's been caught between the politicians and the BMC. To give him credit, there's a lot of work he's had done on the roads. However - and see below - this is the first time he's taking such a strong stance. The battle between free enterprise and urban planning? I'm on the MMRDA chief's side on this one. I just hope this posturing doesn't ruin his career, because ultimately its the politicians who are in charge. Somehow I just can't see this litigation stand in court. Would love your thoughts. http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1108645 MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MUMBAI: When the Tatas launch their Rs1 lakh car some time next year, they could face a roadblock in Mumbai. T Chandrashekhar, who heads the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), the agency entrusted with the task of implementing the city's multi-crore infrastructure projects, says that he would be the first to file a public interest litigation (PIL) to stop the car's rollout in the city. Chandrashekhar believes that the city will never taste the fruits of its infrastructure investments unless it rations the use of road space and private vehicles. "The Tata car cannot be permitted (into the city) as it would choke up Mumbai. The low cost would mean that all those who can afford bikes will jump into the car segment. Then, no road space will be enough to hold the sea of vehicles. The city will be doomed," he warns. As metropolitan commissioner, Chandrashekhar is in charge of redeveloping 150 km of roads in Mumbai, which includes both the Eastern and Western Express Highways and the new east-west connecting roads - the Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road (JVLR) and the Santa Cruz-Chembur Link Road (SCLR). He wants the state government to initiate strict vehicle rationing. "Today, people are buying vehicles like they purchase chocolates. Only those citizens who have parking space must be allowed to buy cars. There should be a fixed quota of new vehicles sold in Mumbai. And like London and Paris, the city must levy a congestion tax to de-clog the roads," he adds. The MMRDA chief cautioned that in the next five years, all the roads and flyovers will be inadequate if vehicular growth is not controlled. That apart, Chandrashekhar also wants to control the influx of job-seekers in Mumbai. He wants the city to introduce a work permit regime in Mumbai. "Only those having a work permit and a valid house must be provided basic amenities like ration card, telephone connection and power supply," he said. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070707/f5c79f7d/attachment.html From alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk Tue Jul 10 05:24:30 2007 From: alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 21:24:30 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car References: <4EAD6A7366C3C048B9304D45EE5B352E1384E9@zhkdntmb01a.int.clsa.com> Message-ID: <004b01c7c267$2ce0f9b0$2949b251@userukifbwjukr> But leaving aside the questions of political acceptability, how could Chandrashekhar ban the 1 lakh car in Greater Mumbai when the rest of India accepts it? But I agree with his analysis. Alan -- Alan Howes, Perthshire, Scotland ----- Original Message ----- From: Anupam Gupta, CLSA To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 7:37 AM Subject: [sustran] MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MMRDA is the regional planning authority for Mumbai. It reports to the Chief Minister. MMRDA Chief, Dr. T. Chandrashekhar, has an impressive track record of work in Thane. In Mumbai, he's been caught between the politicians and the BMC. To give him credit, there's a lot of work he's had done on the roads. However - and see below - this is the first time he's taking such a strong stance. The battle between free enterprise and urban planning? I'm on the MMRDA chief's side on this one. I just hope this posturing doesn't ruin his career, because ultimately its the politicians who are in charge. Somehow I just can't see this litigation stand in court. Would love your thoughts. http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1108645 MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MUMBAI: When the Tatas launch their Rs1 lakh car some time next year, they could face a roadblock in Mumbai. T Chandrashekhar, who heads the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), the agency entrusted with the task of implementing the city's multi-crore infrastructure projects, says that he would be the first to file a public interest litigation (PIL) to stop the car's rollout in the city. Chandrashekhar believes that the city will never taste the fruits of its infrastructure investments unless it rations the use of road space and private vehicles. "The Tata car cannot be permitted (into the city) as it would choke up Mumbai. The low cost would mean that all those who can afford bikes will jump into the car segment. Then, no road space will be enough to hold the sea of vehicles. The city will be doomed," he warns. As metropolitan commissioner, Chandrashekhar is in charge of redeveloping 150 km of roads in Mumbai, which includes both the Eastern and Western Express Highways and the new east-west connecting roads - the Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road (JVLR) and the Santa Cruz-Chembur Link Road (SCLR). He wants the state government to initiate strict vehicle rationing. "Today, people are buying vehicles like they purchase chocolates. Only those citizens who have parking space must be allowed to buy cars. There should be a fixed quota of new vehicles sold in Mumbai. And like London and Paris, the city must levy a congestion tax to de-clog the roads," he adds. The MMRDA chief cautioned that in the next five years, all the roads and flyovers will be inadequate if vehicular growth is not controlled. That apart, Chandrashekhar also wants to control the influx of job-seekers in Mumbai. He wants the city to introduce a work permit regime in Mumbai. "Only those having a work permit and a valid house must be provided basic amenities like ration card, telephone connection and power supply," he said. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070709/6d9e6bb5/attachment.html From SCHIPPER at wri.org Tue Jul 10 06:12:58 2007 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:12:58 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <004b01c7c267$2ce0f9b0$2949b251@userukifbwjukr> References: <4EAD6A7366C3C048B9304D45EE5B352E1384E9@zhkdntmb01a.int.clsa.com> <004b01c7c267$2ce0f9b0$2949b251@userukifbwjukr> Message-ID: <46926C9A0200003800010466@HERMES.wri.org> this is a tough call ? the small cars, if clean, slow, safe and truly small, could really be a boon IF and ONLY IF there are congesiton pricing and rational parking regs in effect so that the chaos in Indian cities arising from all the two wheelers does'nt suddenly have a much larger footprint and above all higher fuel use. I have a great picture of a booth in front of a CICI bank in Pune where a salesman is sitting under a banner declaring "cheap loans for two wheelers" even though there is no decent sidewalk in front of that location. In other words, India has not even caught up with its two wheelers (or cars) - to leap ahead into 1 lakh cars before really taking a deep breath would just make roads more and more clogged, and pedestrians and bicyclists even more endangered, not to mentioned turning more two wheeler drivers/riders into victims of l lakh four wheelers. >>> "Alan Howes" 7/9/2007 4:24:30 PM >>> But leaving aside the questions of political acceptability, how could Chandrashekhar ban the 1 lakh car in Greater Mumbai when the rest of India accepts it? But I agree with his analysis. Alan -- Alan Howes, Perthshire, Scotland ----- Original Message ----- From: Anupam Gupta, CLSA To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 7:37 AM Subject: [sustran] MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MMRDA is the regional planning authority for Mumbai. It reports to the Chief Minister. MMRDA Chief, Dr. T. Chandrashekhar, has an impressive track record of work in Thane. In Mumbai, he's been caught between the politicians and the BMC. To give him credit, there's a lot of work he's had done on the roads. However - and see below - this is the first time he's taking such a strong stance. The battle between free enterprise and urban planning? I'm on the MMRDA chief's side on this one. I just hope this posturing doesn't ruin his career, because ultimately its the politicians who are in charge. Somehow I just can't see this litigation stand in court. Would love your thoughts. http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1108645 MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MUMBAI: When the Tatas launch their Rs1 lakh car some time next year, they could face a roadblock in Mumbai. T Chandrashekhar, who heads the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), the agency entrusted with the task of implementing the city's multi-crore infrastructure projects, says that he would be the first to file a public interest litigation (PIL) to stop the car's rollout in the city. Chandrashekhar believes that the city will never taste the fruits of its infrastructure investments unless it rations the use of road space and private vehicles. "The Tata car cannot be permitted (into the city) as it would choke up Mumbai. The low cost would mean that all those who can afford bikes will jump into the car segment. Then, no road space will be enough to hold the sea of vehicles. The city will be doomed," he warns. As metropolitan commissioner, Chandrashekhar is in charge of redeveloping 150 km of roads in Mumbai, which includes both the Eastern and Western Express Highways and the new east-west connecting roads - the Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road (JVLR) and the Santa Cruz-Chembur Link Road (SCLR). He wants the state government to initiate strict vehicle rationing. "Today, people are buying vehicles like they purchase chocolates. Only those citizens who have parking space must be allowed to buy cars. There should be a fixed quota of new vehicles sold in Mumbai. And like London and Paris, the city must levy a congestion tax to de-clog the roads," he adds. The MMRDA chief cautioned that in the next five years, all the roads and flyovers will be inadequate if vehicular growth is not controlled. That apart, Chandrashekhar also wants to control the influx of job-seekers in Mumbai. He wants the city to introduce a work permit regime in Mumbai. "Only those having a work permit and a valid house must be provided basic amenities like ration card, telephone connection and power supply," he said. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From whook at itdp.org Tue Jul 10 06:05:30 2007 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 17:05:30 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <004b01c7c267$2ce0f9b0$2949b251@userukifbwjukr> Message-ID: <001001c7c26c$e6e76790$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> The spirit is good, but the means seems very wrong headed to me. What is the legal precedent? That governments should be allowed to ban certain categories of vehicles from city streets if the price of the vehicle is too low? This is outrageous. A 1 lak car consumes no more road space than a car costing much more. I would encourage the MMRDA to look into traffic cells, congestion charging and market-oriented parking charges as more rational policies for allocating scarce public road space in Mumbai. Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Alan Howes Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:25 PM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car But leaving aside the questions of political acceptability, how could Chandrashekhar ban the 1 lakh car in Greater Mumbai when the rest of India accepts it? But I agree with his analysis. Alan -- Alan Howes, Perthshire, Scotland ----- Original Message ----- From: Anupam Gupta, CLSA To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 7:37 AM Subject: [sustran] MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MMRDA is the regional planning authority for Mumbai. It reports to the Chief Minister. MMRDA Chief, Dr. T. Chandrashekhar, has an impressive track record of work in Thane. In Mumbai, he's been caught between the politicians and the BMC. To give him credit, there's a lot of work he's had done on the roads. However - and see below - this is the first time he's taking such a strong stance. The battle between free enterprise and urban planning? I'm on the MMRDA chief's side on this one. I just hope this posturing doesn't ruin his career, because ultimately its the politicians who are in charge. Somehow I just can't see this litigation stand in court. Would love your thoughts. http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1108645 MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MUMBAI: When the Tatas launch their Rs1 lakh car some time next year, they could face a roadblock in Mumbai. T Chandrashekhar, who heads the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), the agency entrusted with the task of implementing the city's multi-crore infrastructure projects, says that he would be the first to file a public interest litigation (PIL) to stop the car's rollout in the city. Chandrashekhar believes that the city will never taste the fruits of its infrastructure investments unless it rations the use of road space and private vehicles. "The Tata car cannot be permitted (into the city) as it would choke up Mumbai. The low cost would mean that all those who can afford bikes will jump into the car segment. Then, no road space will be enough to hold the sea of vehicles. The city will be doomed," he warns. As metropolitan commissioner, Chandrashekhar is in charge of redeveloping 150 km of roads in Mumbai, which includes both the Eastern and Western Express Highways and the new east-west connecting roads - the Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road (JVLR) and the Santa Cruz-Chembur Link Road (SCLR). He wants the state government to initiate strict vehicle rationing. "Today, people are buying vehicles like they purchase chocolates. Only those citizens who have parking space must be allowed to buy cars. There should be a fixed quota of new vehicles sold in Mumbai. And like London and Paris, the city must levy a congestion tax to de-clog the roads," he adds. The MMRDA chief cautioned that in the next five years, all the roads and flyovers will be inadequate if vehicular growth is not controlled. That apart, Chandrashekhar also wants to control the influx of job-seekers in Mumbai. He wants the city to introduce a work permit regime in Mumbai. "Only those having a work permit and a valid house must be provided basic amenities like ration card, telephone connection and power supply," he said. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. _____ -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070709/5dd4f642/attachment.html From SCHIPPER at wri.org Tue Jul 10 06:16:16 2007 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:16:16 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <46926C9A0200003800010466@HERMES.wri.org> References: <4EAD6A7366C3C048B9304D45EE5B352E1384E9@zhkdntmb01a.int.clsa.com> <004b01c7c267$2ce0f9b0$2949b251@userukifbwjukr> <46926C9A0200003800010466@HERMES.wri.org> Message-ID: <46926D600200003800010474@HERMES.wri.org> Let me add that "boon" means "if 1 lakh cars in place of conventional cars"; bust means "if 1 lakh cars flooding the streets as those who cannot afford conventional cars get wheels" Lee >>> "Lee Schipper" 7/9/2007 5:12:58 PM >>> this is a tough call ? the small cars, if clean, slow, safe and truly small, could really be a boon IF and ONLY IF there are congesiton pricing and rational parking regs in effect so that the chaos in Indian cities arising from all the two wheelers does'nt suddenly have a much larger footprint and above all higher fuel use. I have a great picture of a booth in front of a CICI bank in Pune where a salesman is sitting under a banner declaring "cheap loans for two wheelers" even though there is no decent sidewalk in front of that location. In other words, India has not even caught up with its two wheelers (or cars) - to leap ahead into 1 lakh cars before really taking a deep breath would just make roads more and more clogged, and pedestrians and bicyclists even more endangered, not to mentioned turning more two wheeler drivers/riders into victims of l lakh four wheelers. >>> "Alan Howes" 7/9/2007 4:24:30 PM >>> But leaving aside the questions of political acceptability, how could Chandrashekhar ban the 1 lakh car in Greater Mumbai when the rest of India accepts it? But I agree with his analysis. Alan -- Alan Howes, Perthshire, Scotland ----- Original Message ----- From: Anupam Gupta, CLSA To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 7:37 AM Subject: [sustran] MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MMRDA is the regional planning authority for Mumbai. It reports to the Chief Minister. MMRDA Chief, Dr. T. Chandrashekhar, has an impressive track record of work in Thane. In Mumbai, he's been caught between the politicians and the BMC. To give him credit, there's a lot of work he's had done on the roads. However - and see below - this is the first time he's taking such a strong stance. The battle between free enterprise and urban planning? I'm on the MMRDA chief's side on this one. I just hope this posturing doesn't ruin his career, because ultimately its the politicians who are in charge. Somehow I just can't see this litigation stand in court. Would love your thoughts. http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1108645 MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MUMBAI: When the Tatas launch their Rs1 lakh car some time next year, they could face a roadblock in Mumbai. T Chandrashekhar, who heads the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), the agency entrusted with the task of implementing the city's multi-crore infrastructure projects, says that he would be the first to file a public interest litigation (PIL) to stop the car's rollout in the city. Chandrashekhar believes that the city will never taste the fruits of its infrastructure investments unless it rations the use of road space and private vehicles. "The Tata car cannot be permitted (into the city) as it would choke up Mumbai. The low cost would mean that all those who can afford bikes will jump into the car segment. Then, no road space will be enough to hold the sea of vehicles. The city will be doomed," he warns. As metropolitan commissioner, Chandrashekhar is in charge of redeveloping 150 km of roads in Mumbai, which includes both the Eastern and Western Express Highways and the new east-west connecting roads - the Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road (JVLR) and the Santa Cruz-Chembur Link Road (SCLR). He wants the state government to initiate strict vehicle rationing. "Today, people are buying vehicles like they purchase chocolates. Only those citizens who have parking space must be allowed to buy cars. There should be a fixed quota of new vehicles sold in Mumbai. And like London and Paris, the city must levy a congestion tax to de-clog the roads," he adds. The MMRDA chief cautioned that in the next five years, all the roads and flyovers will be inadequate if vehicular growth is not controlled. That apart, Chandrashekhar also wants to control the influx of job-seekers in Mumbai. He wants the city to introduce a work permit regime in Mumbai. "Only those having a work permit and a valid house must be provided basic amenities like ration card, telephone connection and power supply," he said. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From anupam.gupta at clsa.com Tue Jul 10 14:02:14 2007 From: anupam.gupta at clsa.com (Anupam Gupta, CLSA) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:02:14 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Message-ID: <4EAD6A7366C3C048B9304D45EE5B352E2161E2@zhkdntmb01a.int.clsa.com> Hi All - I've attempted to reply to each of your points individually. Do forgive me, if I've missed anyone out and thanks very much for your answers. Alan Howes - Chandrashekhar can't ban the car. Only the legal process can. What he's said is that he will file a "Public Interest Litigation" and move the court on this issue. It will be left on the court to decide (a) whether the PIL should even be listened to at all and if yes, then to (b) hear the matter. Lee Schipper - you said "if clean, slow, safe and truly small," "Clean" - In India, Euro III norms are applicable in metros and a handful of key cities and Euro II in all other areas. Tata's car will comply with all these norms. (Note that diesel accounts for about 20% of car sales in India and we have CRDI engines although these are not mandatory). "Slow" - not sure what you meant, but its a 630cc engine and I guess the BHP will also be on the lower side. "Safe" - there are no safety requirements in India for cars. One reason why they're so attractively priced. (cheapest car in India retails at just over US$5,000). "Truly small" - we still don't know the specs, but it will have to be smaller than 4,000mm to qualify as a "small car" and get lower excise duty. I fear you bust scenario is more likely than a boom scenario. Congestion pricing in Mumbai has been specifically ruled out by the Chief Minister of Maharahstra (who also happens to be Dr. Chandrashekhar's boss). My personal view is that this car will indeed turn "more two wheeler drivers/riders into victims of l lakh four wheelers". That's where Dr. C is also coming from. Walter Hook - Indeed, banning the car would be outrageous. As outrageous as Mumbai's urban planning, which seems to be devoid of sustainability and scalability. As I mentioned above, the Govt is strictly anti-congestion pricing. As for "market-oriented parking charges" - well, that's not happening either. More and more the Govt is looking at creating supply everywhere without a thought for the longer term. For example - on parking, the Municipality has suggested building huge underground car parks in certain areas. So we're talking - more supply for parking so that more people use cars to travel more often on roads that don't expand as often. Something's not right in that. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070710/ddc47f31/attachment.html From sujit at vsnl.com Tue Jul 10 14:51:03 2007 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:21:03 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <001001c7c26c$e6e76790$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> References: <004b01c7c267$2ce0f9b0$2949b251@userukifbwjukr> <001001c7c26c$e6e76790$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0707092251w26c02efdsc9b0c9d4ee5dd7e2@mail.gmail.com> 10 July 2007 I don't think our democratic constitution will permit such a ban, which can be prevented on grounds of unjustified discrimination (unless lack of safety is cited as the reason and can be proved to be true) but the idea for automobile restriction will hopefully become possible to sell at least in some form, to our policy makers who are selectively ignorant to the consequences of auto domination. It may become possible to force them to admit that auto-mania needs to be countered in the interest of the majority of population which is the sufferer. And as Walter rightly points out there are other options - we could start by charging heavy levies on fuel guzzlers and high polluting vehicles, as well as tightening parking controls (something totally contradictory to present policy of searching for parking spaces even under ones bed!! :-) -- Sujit Patwardhan Parisar/PTTF Pune, India On 7/10/07, Walter Hook wrote: > > The spirit is good, but the means seems very wrong headed to me. What is > the legal precedent? That governments should be allowed to ban certain > categories of vehicles from city streets if the price of the vehicle is too > low? This is outrageous. A 1 lak car consumes no more road space than a > car costing much more. > > > > I would encourage the MMRDA to look into traffic cells, congestion > charging and market-oriented parking charges as more rational policies for > allocating scarce public road space in Mumbai. > > > > Walter > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto: > sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan > Howes > *Sent:* Monday, July 09, 2007 4:25 PM > *To:* Global 'South' Sustainable Transport > *Subject:* [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > > > > But leaving aside the questions of political acceptability, how could > Chandrashekhar ban the 1 lakh car in Greater Mumbai when the rest of India > accepts it? > > > > But I agree with his analysis. > > > > Alan > > > > -- > Alan Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Anupam Gupta, CLSA > > *To:* sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > *Sent:* Saturday, July 07, 2007 7:37 AM > > *Subject:* [sustran] MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > > > > MMRDA is the regional planning authority for Mumbai. It reports to the > Chief Minister. MMRDA Chief, Dr. T. Chandrashekhar, has an impressive track > record of work in Thane. In Mumbai, he's been caught between the politicians > and the BMC. To give him credit, there's a lot of work he's had done on the > roads. However - and see below - this is the first time he's taking such a > strong stance. The battle between free enterprise and urban planning? I'm on > the MMRDA chief's side on this one. I just hope this posturing doesn't ruin > his career, because ultimately its the politicians who are in charge. > Somehow I just can't see this litigation stand in court. Would love your > thoughts. > > > > http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1108645 > > > > > > *MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car* > > MUMBAI: When the Tatas launch their Rs1 lakh car some time next year, they > could face a roadblock in Mumbai. T Chandrashekhar, who heads the Mumbai > Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), the agency entrusted with > the task of implementing the city's multi-crore infrastructure projects, > says that he would be the first to file a public interest litigation (PIL) > to stop the car's rollout in the city. > > Chandrashekhar believes that the city will never taste the fruits of its > infrastructure investments unless it rations the use of road space and > private vehicles. "The Tata car cannot be permitted (into the city) as it > would choke up Mumbai. The low cost would mean that all those who can afford > bikes will jump into the car segment. Then, no road space will be enough to > hold the sea of vehicles. The city will be doomed," he warns. > > As metropolitan commissioner, Chandrashekhar is in charge of redeveloping > 150 km of roads in Mumbai, which includes both the Eastern and Western > Express Highways and the new east-west connecting roads ? the > Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road (JVLR) and the Santa Cruz-Chembur Link Road > (SCLR). He wants the state government to initiate strict vehicle rationing. > > "Today, people are buying vehicles like they purchase chocolates. Only > those citizens who have parking space must be allowed to buy cars. There > should be a fixed quota of new vehicles sold in Mumbai. And like London and > Paris, the city must levy a congestion tax to de-clog the roads," he adds. > The MMRDA chief cautioned that in the next five years, all the roads and > flyovers will be inadequate if vehicular growth is not controlled. > > That apart, Chandrashekhar also wants to control the influx of job-seekers > in Mumbai. He wants the city to introduce a work permit regime in Mumbai. > "Only those having a work permit and a valid house must be provided basic > amenities like ration card, telephone connection and power supply," he said. > > > > > Regards, > > Anupam Gupta > > +91 22 6650 5074 > > Mobile +91 98204 98981 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > *CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this > Email* > > > > The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory > Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or > sent to you upon request. > > > ------------------------------ > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via > YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to > join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The > yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the > real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you > can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via > YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to > join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The > yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the > real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you > can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) www.pttf.net ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070710/dfd498ef/attachment.html From debi.cat at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 15:43:22 2007 From: debi.cat at gmail.com (Debi Goenka) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:22 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car References: <004b01c7c267$2ce0f9b0$2949b251@userukifbwjukr><001001c7c26c$e6e76790$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> <4cfd20aa0707092251w26c02efdsc9b0c9d4ee5dd7e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008401c7c2bd$a21aeeb0$2f2aa13b@debisam> Hi all Just a few more points to add to this discussion - 1. The Committee appointed by the Bombay High Court (the Lal Committee) had recommended a traffic restraint scheme for the island city based on number plates - the idea was to get 20% of the privately owned vehicles off the roads in the island city of Mumbai during week days. This issue is still to be decided by the Court. 2. I do not think Dr Chandrashekhar can file a PIL on this issue unless he gets prior permission of Government, or unless he resigns, or retires. I wonder if any of these options are being contemplated at the moment. 3. However, as Metropolitan Commissioner, he can make recommendations for modification of the Regional Plan so that private transport use in Mumbai, which is a part of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, can be regulated. Nothing is actually stopping him from doing this. These recommendations could include traffic restraint schemes. congestion pricing, availability of mandatory off road parking for new vehicles, higher parking charges, etc. -- in short, the works!! Why is this option not being explored? 4. The Regional Plan can also address issues of public transport vs private transport, and look at options of upgrading suburban trains, public bus systems, BRT, etc. Issues such as flyovers, elevated roads, sea links, etc can also be addressed through this process. Cheers Debi PS I am also wondering how Dr C would react if Reliance decided to make a Rs. 99,999 car! ----- Original Message ----- From: Sujit Patwardhan To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car 10 July 2007 I don't think our democratic constitution will permit such a ban, which can be prevented on grounds of unjustified discrimination (unless lack of safety is cited as the reason and can be proved to be true) but the idea for automobile restriction will hopefully become possible to sell at least in some form, to our policy makers who are selectively ignorant to the consequences of auto domination. It may become possible to force them to admit that auto-mania needs to be countered in the interest of the majority of population which is the sufferer. And as Walter rightly points out there are other options - we could start by charging heavy levies on fuel guzzlers and high polluting vehicles, as well as tightening parking controls (something totally contradictory to present policy of searching for parking spaces even under ones bed!! :-) -- Sujit Patwardhan Parisar/PTTF Pune, India On 7/10/07, Walter Hook wrote: The spirit is good, but the means seems very wrong headed to me. What is the legal precedent? That governments should be allowed to ban certain categories of vehicles from city streets if the price of the vehicle is too low? This is outrageous. A 1 lak car consumes no more road space than a car costing much more. I would encourage the MMRDA to look into traffic cells, congestion charging and market-oriented parking charges as more rational policies for allocating scarce public road space in Mumbai. Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Alan Howes Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:25 PM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car But leaving aside the questions of political acceptability, how could Chandrashekhar ban the 1 lakh car in Greater Mumbai when the rest of India accepts it? But I agree with his analysis. Alan -- Alan Howes, Perthshire, Scotland ----- Original Message ----- From: Anupam Gupta, CLSA To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 7:37 AM Subject: [sustran] MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MMRDA is the regional planning authority for Mumbai. It reports to the Chief Minister. MMRDA Chief, Dr. T. Chandrashekhar, has an impressive track record of work in Thane. In Mumbai, he's been caught between the politicians and the BMC. To give him credit, there's a lot of work he's had done on the roads. However - and see below - this is the first time he's taking such a strong stance. The battle between free enterprise and urban planning? I'm on the MMRDA chief's side on this one. I just hope this posturing doesn't ruin his career, because ultimately its the politicians who are in charge. Somehow I just can't see this litigation stand in court. Would love your thoughts. http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1108645 MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MUMBAI: When the Tatas launch their Rs1 lakh car some time next year, they could face a roadblock in Mumbai. T Chandrashekhar, who heads the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), the agency entrusted with the task of implementing the city's multi-crore infrastructure projects, says that he would be the first to file a public interest litigation (PIL) to stop the car's rollout in the city. Chandrashekhar believes that the city will never taste the fruits of its infrastructure investments unless it rations the use of road space and private vehicles. "The Tata car cannot be permitted (into the city) as it would choke up Mumbai. The low cost would mean that all those who can afford bikes will jump into the car segment. Then, no road space will be enough to hold the sea of vehicles. The city will be doomed," he warns. As metropolitan commissioner, Chandrashekhar is in charge of redeveloping 150 km of roads in Mumbai, which includes both the Eastern and Western Express Highways and the new east-west connecting roads ? the Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road (JVLR) and the Santa Cruz-Chembur Link Road (SCLR). He wants the state government to initiate strict vehicle rationing. "Today, people are buying vehicles like they purchase chocolates. Only those citizens who have parking space must be allowed to buy cars. There should be a fixed quota of new vehicles sold in Mumbai. And like London and Paris, the city must levy a congestion tax to de-clog the roads," he adds. The MMRDA chief cautioned that in the next five years, all the roads and flyovers will be inadequate if vehicular growth is not controlled. That apart, Chandrashekhar also wants to control the influx of job-seekers in Mumbai. He wants the city to introduce a work permit regime in Mumbai. "Only those having a work permit and a valid house must be provided basic amenities like ration card, telephone connection and power supply," he said. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) www.pttf.net ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070710/cc3098ae/attachment.html From debi.cat at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 15:43:22 2007 From: debi.cat at gmail.com (Debi Goenka) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:13:22 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car References: <004b01c7c267$2ce0f9b0$2949b251@userukifbwjukr><001001c7c26c$e6e76790$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> <4cfd20aa0707092251w26c02efdsc9b0c9d4ee5dd7e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008401c7c2bd$a21aeeb0$2f2aa13b@debisam> Hi all Just a few more points to add to this discussion - 1. The Committee appointed by the Bombay High Court (the Lal Committee) had recommended a traffic restraint scheme for the island city based on number plates - the idea was to get 20% of the privately owned vehicles off the roads in the island city of Mumbai during week days. This issue is still to be decided by the Court. 2. I do not think Dr Chandrashekhar can file a PIL on this issue unless he gets prior permission of Government, or unless he resigns, or retires. I wonder if any of these options are being contemplated at the moment. 3. However, as Metropolitan Commissioner, he can make recommendations for modification of the Regional Plan so that private transport use in Mumbai, which is a part of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, can be regulated. Nothing is actually stopping him from doing this. These recommendations could include traffic restraint schemes. congestion pricing, availability of mandatory off road parking for new vehicles, higher parking charges, etc. -- in short, the works!! Why is this option not being explored? 4. The Regional Plan can also address issues of public transport vs private transport, and look at options of upgrading suburban trains, public bus systems, BRT, etc. Issues such as flyovers, elevated roads, sea links, etc can also be addressed through this process. Cheers Debi PS I am also wondering how Dr C would react if Reliance decided to make a Rs. 99,999 car! ----- Original Message ----- From: Sujit Patwardhan To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car 10 July 2007 I don't think our democratic constitution will permit such a ban, which can be prevented on grounds of unjustified discrimination (unless lack of safety is cited as the reason and can be proved to be true) but the idea for automobile restriction will hopefully become possible to sell at least in some form, to our policy makers who are selectively ignorant to the consequences of auto domination. It may become possible to force them to admit that auto-mania needs to be countered in the interest of the majority of population which is the sufferer. And as Walter rightly points out there are other options - we could start by charging heavy levies on fuel guzzlers and high polluting vehicles, as well as tightening parking controls (something totally contradictory to present policy of searching for parking spaces even under ones bed!! :-) -- Sujit Patwardhan Parisar/PTTF Pune, India On 7/10/07, Walter Hook wrote: The spirit is good, but the means seems very wrong headed to me. What is the legal precedent? That governments should be allowed to ban certain categories of vehicles from city streets if the price of the vehicle is too low? This is outrageous. A 1 lak car consumes no more road space than a car costing much more. I would encourage the MMRDA to look into traffic cells, congestion charging and market-oriented parking charges as more rational policies for allocating scarce public road space in Mumbai. Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Alan Howes Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:25 PM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car But leaving aside the questions of political acceptability, how could Chandrashekhar ban the 1 lakh car in Greater Mumbai when the rest of India accepts it? But I agree with his analysis. Alan -- Alan Howes, Perthshire, Scotland ----- Original Message ----- From: Anupam Gupta, CLSA To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 7:37 AM Subject: [sustran] MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MMRDA is the regional planning authority for Mumbai. It reports to the Chief Minister. MMRDA Chief, Dr. T. Chandrashekhar, has an impressive track record of work in Thane. In Mumbai, he's been caught between the politicians and the BMC. To give him credit, there's a lot of work he's had done on the roads. However - and see below - this is the first time he's taking such a strong stance. The battle between free enterprise and urban planning? I'm on the MMRDA chief's side on this one. I just hope this posturing doesn't ruin his career, because ultimately its the politicians who are in charge. Somehow I just can't see this litigation stand in court. Would love your thoughts. http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1108645 MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car MUMBAI: When the Tatas launch their Rs1 lakh car some time next year, they could face a roadblock in Mumbai. T Chandrashekhar, who heads the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), the agency entrusted with the task of implementing the city's multi-crore infrastructure projects, says that he would be the first to file a public interest litigation (PIL) to stop the car's rollout in the city. Chandrashekhar believes that the city will never taste the fruits of its infrastructure investments unless it rations the use of road space and private vehicles. "The Tata car cannot be permitted (into the city) as it would choke up Mumbai. The low cost would mean that all those who can afford bikes will jump into the car segment. Then, no road space will be enough to hold the sea of vehicles. The city will be doomed," he warns. As metropolitan commissioner, Chandrashekhar is in charge of redeveloping 150 km of roads in Mumbai, which includes both the Eastern and Western Express Highways and the new east-west connecting roads ? the Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road (JVLR) and the Santa Cruz-Chembur Link Road (SCLR). He wants the state government to initiate strict vehicle rationing. "Today, people are buying vehicles like they purchase chocolates. Only those citizens who have parking space must be allowed to buy cars. There should be a fixed quota of new vehicles sold in Mumbai. And like London and Paris, the city must levy a congestion tax to de-clog the roads," he adds. The MMRDA chief cautioned that in the next five years, all the roads and flyovers will be inadequate if vehicular growth is not controlled. That apart, Chandrashekhar also wants to control the influx of job-seekers in Mumbai. He wants the city to introduce a work permit regime in Mumbai. "Only those having a work permit and a valid house must be provided basic amenities like ration card, telephone connection and power supply," he said. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) www.pttf.net ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070710/cc3098ae/attachment-0001.html From ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com Tue Jul 10 15:56:16 2007 From: ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com (Ashok Sreenivas) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:26:16 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <001001c7c26c$e6e76790$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> References: <001001c7c26c$e6e76790$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> Message-ID: <46932D90.1020300@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070710/ef3b1919/attachment.html From SCHIPPER at wri.org Tue Jul 10 19:58:25 2007 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:58:25 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <4EAD6A7366C3C048B9304D45EE5B352E2161E2@zhkdntmb01a.int.clsa.com> References: <4EAD6A7366C3C048B9304D45EE5B352E2161E2@zhkdntmb01a.int.clsa.com> Message-ID: <46932E11020000380001054B@HERMES.wri.org> Thanks. we need to continue this discussion, as it is clear that the boom and bust ? either way a rapid rise in uncontrolled private motorization ? will endanger ALL indian cities, but a simple banning of the "vehicle" is a poor way of making up for authorities'/society's inability to plan and enforce! Lee Schipper Director of Research EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport 10 G St. NE Washington DC, 20002 +1202 729 7735 FAX +1202 7297775 www.embarq.wri.org >>> "Anupam Gupta, CLSA" 7/10/2007 1:02:14 AM >>> Hi All - I've attempted to reply to each of your points individually. Do forgive me, if I've missed anyone out and thanks very much for your answers. Alan Howes - Chandrashekhar can't ban the car. Only the legal process can. What he's said is that he will file a "Public Interest Litigation" and move the court on this issue. It will be left on the court to decide (a) whether the PIL should even be listened to at all and if yes, then to (b) hear the matter. Lee Schipper - you said "if clean, slow, safe and truly small," "Clean" - In India, Euro III norms are applicable in metros and a handful of key cities and Euro II in all other areas. Tata's car will comply with all these norms. (Note that diesel accounts for about 20% of car sales in India and we have CRDI engines although these are not mandatory). "Slow" - not sure what you meant, but its a 630cc engine and I guess the BHP will also be on the lower side. "Safe" - there are no safety requirements in India for cars. One reason why they're so attractively priced. (cheapest car in India retails at just over US$5,000). "Truly small" - we still don't know the specs, but it will have to be smaller than 4,000mm to qualify as a "small car" and get lower excise duty. I fear you bust scenario is more likely than a boom scenario. Congestion pricing in Mumbai has been specifically ruled out by the Chief Minister of Maharahstra (who also happens to be Dr. Chandrashekhar's boss). My personal view is that this car will indeed turn "more two wheeler drivers/riders into victims of l lakh four wheelers". That's where Dr. C is also coming from. Walter Hook - Indeed, banning the car would be outrageous. As outrageous as Mumbai's urban planning, which seems to be devoid of sustainability and scalability. As I mentioned above, the Govt is strictly anti-congestion pricing. As for "market-oriented parking charges" - well, that's not happening either. More and more the Govt is looking at creating supply everywhere without a thought for the longer term. For example - on parking, the Municipality has suggested building huge underground car parks in certain areas. So we're talking - more supply for parking so that more people use cars to travel more often on roads that don't expand as often. Something's not right in that. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 08:00:24 2007 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlos F. Pardo) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:00:24 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <46932E11020000380001054B@HERMES.wri.org> References: <4EAD6A7366C3C048B9304D45EE5B352E2161E2@zhkdntmb01a.int.clsa.com> <46932E11020000380001054B@HERMES.wri.org> Message-ID: <46940F88.1050001@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070710/eb806349/attachment.html From tr_saranathan at hotmail.com Wed Jul 11 12:30:48 2007 From: tr_saranathan at hotmail.com (TR Saranathan) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:00:48 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <46940F88.1050001@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sir/Madam, Nowadays the approach in solving many problems has been an INTEGRATED one. Why not do this keeping in mind all the suggestions so far given for and against this problem also. Further, Transport problems depend on many Factors and mainly the Location, the Climate,the Economy etc of a particular Place. Dr.T.R.Saranathan >From: "Carlos F. Pardo" >Reply-To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport > >To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport >Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car >Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:00:24 -0500 > > > > > > > >Just for the sake of argument, I don't get Walter's point about >congestion charging being "fairer" than banning a cheap car. Looking at >it from a certain angle, congestion charging is also a "ban" from the >CBD to those who only have the money to buy a car and put gas on it >(most middle class people in low-income countries). It has the perverse >effect that only those who have 8 pounds a day to "invest" on the >London congestion charging (i.e. rich people) are the ones who have the >"privilege" to ride their car inside the city (i would define that as >inequity in access). All others can only use their car outside of the >CBD. Am I way off? > > > >However, there is also the fact that revenue from congestion charging >can be used (and is used) for improvements in public transport... > > > >I think the best is to (also) include charges to buying the car, such >as the ones used in Singapore and Shanghai. The bid system is a way of >controlling very low costs of vehicles while not providing any revenue >for the cities to improve their public transport, NMT infrastructure, >etc. > > > >Best regards, > > >Carlos F. Pardo >Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator >GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) >Cl 93A # 14-17 of 708 >Bogotá D.C., Colombia >Tel/fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 >carlos.pardo@sutp.org www.sutp.org > > > > >Lee Schipper wrote: > > >Thanks. we need to continue this discussion, as it is clear that the >boom and bust — either way a rapid rise in uncontrolled private >motorization — will endanger ALL indian cities, but a simple banning >of the "vehicle" is a poor way of making up for authorities'/society's >inability to plan and enforce! > >Lee Schipper >Director of Research >EMBARQ, the WRI Center >for Sustainable Transport >10 G St. NE >Washington DC, 20002 >+1202 729 7735 >FAX +1202 7297775 >www.embarq.wri.org > > > > > > >"Anupam Gupta, CLSA" 7/10/2007 1:02:14 AM > > > > > > >Hi All - I've attempted to reply to each of your points individually. >Do >forgive me, if I've missed anyone out and thanks very much for your >answers. > > >Alan Howes - Chandrashekhar can't ban the car. Only the legal process >can. >What he's said is that he will file a "Public Interest Litigation" and >move >the court on this issue. It will be left on the court to decide (a) >whether >the PIL should even be listened to at all and if yes, then to (b) hear >the >matter. > >Lee Schipper - you said "if clean, slow, safe and truly small," > >"Clean" - In India, Euro III norms are applicable in metros and a >handful of >key cities and Euro II in all other areas. Tata's car will comply with >all >these norms. (Note that diesel accounts for about 20% of car sales in >India >and we have CRDI engines although these are not mandatory). > >"Slow" - not sure what you meant, but its a 630cc engine and I guess >the BHP >will also be on the lower side. > >"Safe" - there are no safety requirements in India for cars. One reason >why >they're so attractively priced. (cheapest car in India retails at just >over >US$5,000). > >"Truly small" - we still don't know the specs, but it will have to be >smaller than 4,000mm to qualify as a "small car" and get lower excise >duty. >I fear you bust scenario is more likely than a boom scenario. > >Congestion pricing in Mumbai has been specifically ruled out by the >Chief >Minister of Maharahstra (who also happens to be Dr. Chandrashekhar's >boss). >My personal view is that this car will indeed turn "more two wheeler >drivers/riders into victims of l lakh four wheelers". That's where Dr. >C is >also coming from. > >Walter Hook - Indeed, banning the car would be outrageous. As >outrageous as >Mumbai's urban planning, which seems to be devoid of sustainability >and >scalability. As I mentioned above, the Govt is strictly >anti-congestion >pricing. As for "market-oriented parking charges" - well, that's not >happening either. More and more the Govt is looking at creating supply >everywhere without a thought for the longer term. For example - on >parking, >the Municipality has suggested building huge underground car parks in >certain areas. So we're talking - more supply for parking so that more >people use cars to travel more often on roads that don't expand as >often. >Something's not right in that. > > > >Regards, >Anupam Gupta >+91 22 6650 5074 >Mobile +91 98204 98981 > > >------------------------------------------------------------- > >CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing >this Email > >The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and >Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at >https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. > >-------------------------------------------------------- >IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via >YAHOOGROUPS. > >Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to >join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The >yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the >real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you >can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). > > > >-------------------------------------------------------- >IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via >YAHOOGROUPS. > >Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to >join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The >yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the >real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you >can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, >equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries >(the 'Global South'). _________________________________________________________________ Real Estate classifieds on MSN - for free.www.yello.in http://www.yello.in/home.php?utm_source=hotmailtag&utm_medium=email&utm_content=in&utm_campaign=jun From sunny.enie at gmail.com Wed Jul 11 12:51:10 2007 From: sunny.enie at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:51:10 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <469453AE.8020703@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070711/89c27d4f/attachment.html From zvi at inro.ca Thu Jul 12 00:34:27 2007 From: zvi at inro.ca (Zvi Leve) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:34:27 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <46940F88.1050001@gmail.com> References: <4EAD6A7366C3C048B9304D45EE5B352E2161E2@zhkdntmb01a.int.clsa.com> <46932E11020000380001054B@HERMES.wri.org> <46940F88.1050001@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4694F883.9070703@inro.ca> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070711/b0f54cab/attachment.html From whook at itdp.org Thu Jul 12 01:34:27 2007 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:34:27 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <4694F883.9070703@inro.ca> Message-ID: <001101c7c3d9$59fd23b0$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> Carlos, You are way off. Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems, and a lot of social benefits. The social costs are related to car USE and overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on location. In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution, and in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in other locations it will not. It is therefore more socially optimal to regulate car USE than to regulate its ownership. If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could certainly be banned on those grounds. But a cheap car generates no more congestion than an expensive car. Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from consumers to the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for public investments. It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion benefits will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the aggregate social benefits of a congestion charge. In poor areas, where there is likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to be priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be the worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and again there will be no congestion relief. If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a far less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge. If the purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no good either. With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person can prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the trip is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge is). This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative license plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second car, or a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an expensive car. Best Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Zvi Leve Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:34 AM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Don't forget that developing a 'national' auto industry may also be one of the development goals of the Indian Government. Clearly national development goals may conflict with the development goals of other levels of government (ie the Mumbai Metropolitan Area). We generally leave it to the politicians to balance these various trade-offs, but appealing to the courts to force the debate is certainly a legitimate approach. Shanghai took an interesting approach: among other things they apparently banned cars with engine sizes less than 1600 CC. On the one hand this may seem perverse because most people clearly cannot afford cars with such a large engine size, but on the other hand it is quite clear that Shanghai would never be able to accommodate all of the vehicles that it's citizens might want to purchase. Plus this policy also serves to reinforce the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation which produces mid-sized vehicles (the Santana) under license from VW - with engine sizes of 1600! Presumably Mumbai (and many other Indian cities) is in a similar situation. People want mobility (in the sense that being able to move about gives access to more options). If people cannot get where they want to go in a convenient way, then it is not surprising that they will turn to other 'private' options such as personal motorized vehicles. India already has relatively significant rates of 'motorization' in the sense of 'motorized vehicles per capita' (not necessarily cars), so I don't know how much of a difference banning one particular type of vehicle (presumably an accessible one!) will make.... Best regards, Zvi Carlos F. Pardo wrote: Just for the sake of argument, I don't get Walter's point about congestion charging being "fairer" than banning a cheap car. Looking at it from a certain angle, congestion charging is also a "ban" from the CBD to those who only have the money to buy a car and put gas on it (most middle class people in low-income countries). It has the perverse effect that only those who have 8 pounds a day to "invest" on the London congestion charging (i.e. rich people) are the ones who have the "privilege" to ride their car inside the city (i would define that as inequity in access). All others can only use their car outside of the CBD. Am I way off? However, there is also the fact that revenue from congestion charging can be used (and is used) for improvements in public transport... I think the best is to (also) include charges to buying the car, such as the ones used in Singapore and Shanghai. The bid system is a way of controlling very low costs of vehicles while not providing any revenue for the cities to improve their public transport, NMT infrastructure, etc. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 93A # 14-17 of 708 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel/fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 carlos.pardo@sutp.org www.sutp.org Lee Schipper wrote: Thanks. we need to continue this discussion, as it is clear that the boom and bust ? either way a rapid rise in uncontrolled private motorization ? will endanger ALL indian cities, but a simple banning of the "vehicle" is a poor way of making up for authorities'/society's inability to plan and enforce! Lee Schipper Director of Research EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport 10 G St. NE Washington DC, 20002 +1202 729 7735 FAX +1202 7297775 www.embarq.wri.org "Anupam Gupta, CLSA" 7/10/2007 1:02:14 AM Hi All - I've attempted to reply to each of your points individually. Do forgive me, if I've missed anyone out and thanks very much for your answers. Alan Howes - Chandrashekhar can't ban the car. Only the legal process can. What he's said is that he will file a "Public Interest Litigation" and move the court on this issue. It will be left on the court to decide (a) whether the PIL should even be listened to at all and if yes, then to (b) hear the matter. Lee Schipper - you said "if clean, slow, safe and truly small," "Clean" - In India, Euro III norms are applicable in metros and a handful of key cities and Euro II in all other areas. Tata's car will comply with all these norms. (Note that diesel accounts for about 20% of car sales in India and we have CRDI engines although these are not mandatory). "Slow" - not sure what you meant, but its a 630cc engine and I guess the BHP will also be on the lower side. "Safe" - there are no safety requirements in India for cars. One reason why they're so attractively priced. (cheapest car in India retails at just over US$5,000). "Truly small" - we still don't know the specs, but it will have to be smaller than 4,000mm to qualify as a "small car" and get lower excise duty. I fear you bust scenario is more likely than a boom scenario. Congestion pricing in Mumbai has been specifically ruled out by the Chief Minister of Maharahstra (who also happens to be Dr. Chandrashekhar's boss). My personal view is that this car will indeed turn "more two wheeler drivers/riders into victims of l lakh four wheelers". That's where Dr. C is also coming from. Walter Hook - Indeed, banning the car would be outrageous. As outrageous as Mumbai's urban planning, which seems to be devoid of sustainability and scalability. As I mentioned above, the Govt is strictly anti-congestion pricing. As for "market-oriented parking charges" - well, that's not happening either. More and more the Govt is looking at creating supply everywhere without a thought for the longer term. For example - on parking, the Municipality has suggested building huge underground car parks in certain areas. So we're talking - more supply for parking so that more people use cars to travel more often on roads that don't expand as often. Something's not right in that. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). _____ -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070711/4b36b926/attachment.html From SCHIPPER at wri.org Thu Jul 12 01:46:46 2007 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:46:46 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <001101c7c3d9$59fd23b0$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> References: <4694F883.9070703@inro.ca> <001101c7c3d9$59fd23b0$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> Message-ID: <4694D135.D997.0038.0@wri.org> I would add that car OWNERSHIP can cause serious problems if street or sidewalk parking is unrestricted/underpriced/unregulated/unenforced and cars pile up everywhere. Having lived in Paris for years among cars on the sidewalk, only to see cars start to pile upon the streets in Xi'an (not to mention two wheelers in Hanoi or Indian cities), I think there are SERIOUS problems with the keeping of vehicles on public property. >>> "Walter Hook" 7/11/2007 12:34 PM >>> Carlos, You are way off. Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems, and a lot of social benefits. The social costs are related to car USE and overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on location. In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution, and in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in other locations it will not. It is therefore more socially optimal to regulate car USE than to regulate its ownership. If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could certainly be banned on those grounds. But a cheap car generates no more congestion than an expensive car. Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from consumers to the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for public investments. It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion benefits will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the aggregate social benefits of a congestion charge. In poor areas, where there is likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to be priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be the worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and again there will be no congestion relief. If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a far less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge. If the purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no good either. With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person can prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the trip is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge is). This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative license plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second car, or a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an expensive car. Best Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Zvi Leve Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:34 AM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Don't forget that developing a 'national' auto industry may also be one of the development goals of the Indian Government. Clearly national development goals may conflict with the development goals of other levels of government (ie the Mumbai Metropolitan Area). We generally leave it to the politicians to balance these various trade-offs, but appealing to the courts to force the debate is certainly a legitimate approach. Shanghai took an interesting approach: among other things they apparently banned cars with engine sizes less than 1600 CC. On the one hand this may seem perverse because most people clearly cannot afford cars with such a large engine size, but on the other hand it is quite clear that Shanghai would never be able to accommodate all of the vehicles that it's citizens might want to purchase. Plus this policy also serves to reinforce the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation which produces mid-sized vehicles (the Santana) under license from VW - with engine sizes of 1600! Presumably Mumbai (and many other Indian cities) is in a similar situation. People want mobility (in the sense that being able to move about gives access to more options). If people cannot get where they want to go in a convenient way, then it is not surprising that they will turn to other 'private' options such as personal motorized vehicles. India already has relatively significant rates of 'motorization' in the sense of 'motorized vehicles per capita' (not necessarily cars), so I don't know how much of a difference banning one particular type of vehicle (presumably an accessible one!) will make.... Best regards, Zvi Carlos F. Pardo wrote: Just for the sake of argument, I don't get Walter's point about congestion charging being "fairer" than banning a cheap car. Looking at it from a certain angle, congestion charging is also a "ban" from the CBD to those who only have the money to buy a car and put gas on it (most middle class people in low-income countries). It has the perverse effect that only those who have 8 pounds a day to "invest" on the London congestion charging (i.e. rich people) are the ones who have the "privilege" to ride their car inside the city (i would define that as inequity in access). All others can only use their car outside of the CBD. Am I way off? However, there is also the fact that revenue from congestion charging can be used (and is used) for improvements in public transport... I think the best is to (also) include charges to buying the car, such as the ones used in Singapore and Shanghai. The bid system is a way of controlling very low costs of vehicles while not providing any revenue for the cities to improve their public transport, NMT infrastructure, etc. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 93A # 14-17 of 708 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel/fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 carlos.pardo@sutp.org www.sutp.org Lee Schipper wrote: Thanks. we need to continue this discussion, as it is clear that the boom and bust ? either way a rapid rise in uncontrolled private motorization ? will endanger ALL indian cities, but a simple banning of the "vehicle" is a poor way of making up for authorities'/society's inability to plan and enforce! Lee Schipper Director of Research EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport 10 G St. NE Washington DC, 20002 +1202 729 7735 FAX +1202 7297775 www.embarq.wri.org "Anupam Gupta, CLSA" 7/10/2007 1:02:14 AM Hi All - I've attempted to reply to each of your points individually. Do forgive me, if I've missed anyone out and thanks very much for your answers. Alan Howes - Chandrashekhar can't ban the car. Only the legal process can. What he's said is that he will file a "Public Interest Litigation" and move the court on this issue. It will be left on the court to decide (a) whether the PIL should even be listened to at all and if yes, then to (b) hear the matter. Lee Schipper - you said "if clean, slow, safe and truly small," "Clean" - In India, Euro III norms are applicable in metros and a handful of key cities and Euro II in all other areas. Tata's car will comply with all these norms. (Note that diesel accounts for about 20% of car sales in India and we have CRDI engines although these are not mandatory). "Slow" - not sure what you meant, but its a 630cc engine and I guess the BHP will also be on the lower side. "Safe" - there are no safety requirements in India for cars. One reason why they're so attractively priced. (cheapest car in India retails at just over US$5,000). "Truly small" - we still don't know the specs, but it will have to be smaller than 4,000mm to qualify as a "small car" and get lower excise duty. I fear you bust scenario is more likely than a boom scenario. Congestion pricing in Mumbai has been specifically ruled out by the Chief Minister of Maharahstra (who also happens to be Dr. Chandrashekhar's boss). My personal view is that this car will indeed turn "more two wheeler drivers/riders into victims of l lakh four wheelers". That's where Dr. C is also coming from. Walter Hook - Indeed, banning the car would be outrageous. As outrageous as Mumbai's urban planning, which seems to be devoid of sustainability and scalability. As I mentioned above, the Govt is strictly anti-congestion pricing. As for "market-oriented parking charges" - well, that's not happening either. More and more the Govt is looking at creating supply everywhere without a thought for the longer term. For example - on parking, the Municipality has suggested building huge underground car parks in certain areas. So we're talking - more supply for parking so that more people use cars to travel more often on roads that don't expand as often. Something's not right in that. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). _____ -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From whook at itdp.org Thu Jul 12 02:11:31 2007 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:11:31 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <4694D135.D997.0038.0@wri.org> Message-ID: <002001c7c3de$86f8d940$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> I would argue this is not a problem inherent in car ownership but rather a function of undercharging for parking on public roads. Parking is a function of use, not of ownership -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lee Schipper Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:47 PM To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car I would add that car OWNERSHIP can cause serious problems if street or sidewalk parking is unrestricted/underpriced/unregulated/unenforced and cars pile up everywhere. Having lived in Paris for years among cars on the sidewalk, only to see cars start to pile upon the streets in Xi'an (not to mention two wheelers in Hanoi or Indian cities), I think there are SERIOUS problems with the keeping of vehicles on public property. >>> "Walter Hook" 7/11/2007 12:34 PM >>> Carlos, You are way off. Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems, and a lot of social benefits. The social costs are related to car USE and overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on location. In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution, and in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in other locations it will not. It is therefore more socially optimal to regulate car USE than to regulate its ownership. If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could certainly be banned on those grounds. But a cheap car generates no more congestion than an expensive car. Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from consumers to the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for public investments. It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion benefits will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the aggregate social benefits of a congestion charge. In poor areas, where there is likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to be priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be the worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and again there will be no congestion relief. If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a far less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge. If the purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no good either. With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person can prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the trip is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge is). This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative license plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second car, or a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an expensive car. Best Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Zvi Leve Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:34 AM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Don't forget that developing a 'national' auto industry may also be one of the development goals of the Indian Government. Clearly national development goals may conflict with the development goals of other levels of government (ie the Mumbai Metropolitan Area). We generally leave it to the politicians to balance these various trade-offs, but appealing to the courts to force the debate is certainly a legitimate approach. Shanghai took an interesting approach: among other things they apparently banned cars with engine sizes less than 1600 CC. On the one hand this may seem perverse because most people clearly cannot afford cars with such a large engine size, but on the other hand it is quite clear that Shanghai would never be able to accommodate all of the vehicles that it's citizens might want to purchase. Plus this policy also serves to reinforce the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation which produces mid-sized vehicles (the Santana) under license from VW - with engine sizes of 1600! Presumably Mumbai (and many other Indian cities) is in a similar situation. People want mobility (in the sense that being able to move about gives access to more options). If people cannot get where they want to go in a convenient way, then it is not surprising that they will turn to other 'private' options such as personal motorized vehicles. India already has relatively significant rates of 'motorization' in the sense of 'motorized vehicles per capita' (not necessarily cars), so I don't know how much of a difference banning one particular type of vehicle (presumably an accessible one!) will make.... Best regards, Zvi Carlos F. Pardo wrote: Just for the sake of argument, I don't get Walter's point about congestion charging being "fairer" than banning a cheap car. Looking at it from a certain angle, congestion charging is also a "ban" from the CBD to those who only have the money to buy a car and put gas on it (most middle class people in low-income countries). It has the perverse effect that only those who have 8 pounds a day to "invest" on the London congestion charging (i.e. rich people) are the ones who have the "privilege" to ride their car inside the city (i would define that as inequity in access). All others can only use their car outside of the CBD. Am I way off? However, there is also the fact that revenue from congestion charging can be used (and is used) for improvements in public transport... I think the best is to (also) include charges to buying the car, such as the ones used in Singapore and Shanghai. The bid system is a way of controlling very low costs of vehicles while not providing any revenue for the cities to improve their public transport, NMT infrastructure, etc. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 93A # 14-17 of 708 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel/fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 carlos.pardo@sutp.org www.sutp.org Lee Schipper wrote: Thanks. we need to continue this discussion, as it is clear that the boom and bust ? either way a rapid rise in uncontrolled private motorization ? will endanger ALL indian cities, but a simple banning of the "vehicle" is a poor way of making up for authorities'/society's inability to plan and enforce! Lee Schipper Director of Research EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport 10 G St. NE Washington DC, 20002 +1202 729 7735 FAX +1202 7297775 www.embarq.wri.org "Anupam Gupta, CLSA" 7/10/2007 1:02:14 AM Hi All - I've attempted to reply to each of your points individually. Do forgive me, if I've missed anyone out and thanks very much for your answers. Alan Howes - Chandrashekhar can't ban the car. Only the legal process can. What he's said is that he will file a "Public Interest Litigation" and move the court on this issue. It will be left on the court to decide (a) whether the PIL should even be listened to at all and if yes, then to (b) hear the matter. Lee Schipper - you said "if clean, slow, safe and truly small," "Clean" - In India, Euro III norms are applicable in metros and a handful of key cities and Euro II in all other areas. Tata's car will comply with all these norms. (Note that diesel accounts for about 20% of car sales in India and we have CRDI engines although these are not mandatory). "Slow" - not sure what you meant, but its a 630cc engine and I guess the BHP will also be on the lower side. "Safe" - there are no safety requirements in India for cars. One reason why they're so attractively priced. (cheapest car in India retails at just over US$5,000). "Truly small" - we still don't know the specs, but it will have to be smaller than 4,000mm to qualify as a "small car" and get lower excise duty. I fear you bust scenario is more likely than a boom scenario. Congestion pricing in Mumbai has been specifically ruled out by the Chief Minister of Maharahstra (who also happens to be Dr. Chandrashekhar's boss). My personal view is that this car will indeed turn "more two wheeler drivers/riders into victims of l lakh four wheelers". That's where Dr. C is also coming from. Walter Hook - Indeed, banning the car would be outrageous. As outrageous as Mumbai's urban planning, which seems to be devoid of sustainability and scalability. As I mentioned above, the Govt is strictly anti-congestion pricing. As for "market-oriented parking charges" - well, that's not happening either. More and more the Govt is looking at creating supply everywhere without a thought for the longer term. For example - on parking, the Municipality has suggested building huge underground car parks in certain areas. So we're talking - more supply for parking so that more people use cars to travel more often on roads that don't expand as often. Something's not right in that. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). _____ -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From SCHIPPER at wri.org Thu Jul 12 02:17:17 2007 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:17:17 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <002001c7c3de$86f8d940$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> References: <4694D135.D997.0038.0@wri.org> <002001c7c3de$86f8d940$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> Message-ID: <4694D85B.D997.0038.0@wri.org> Agreed, but the swelling of car ownership is encouraged by lax parking regulations... >>> "Walter Hook" 7/11/2007 1:11 PM >>> I would argue this is not a problem inherent in car ownership but rather a function of undercharging for parking on public roads. Parking is a function of use, not of ownership -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lee Schipper Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:47 PM To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car I would add that car OWNERSHIP can cause serious problems if street or sidewalk parking is unrestricted/underpriced/unregulated/unenforced and cars pile up everywhere. Having lived in Paris for years among cars on the sidewalk, only to see cars start to pile upon the streets in Xi'an (not to mention two wheelers in Hanoi or Indian cities), I think there are SERIOUS problems with the keeping of vehicles on public property. >>> "Walter Hook" 7/11/2007 12:34 PM >>> Carlos, You are way off. Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems, and a lot of social benefits. The social costs are related to car USE and overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on location. In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution, and in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in other locations it will not. It is therefore more socially optimal to regulate car USE than to regulate its ownership. If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could certainly be banned on those grounds. But a cheap car generates no more congestion than an expensive car. Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from consumers to the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for public investments. It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion benefits will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the aggregate social benefits of a congestion charge. In poor areas, where there is likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to be priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be the worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and again there will be no congestion relief. If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a far less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge. If the purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no good either. With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person can prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the trip is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge is). This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative license plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second car, or a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an expensive car. Best Walter -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Zvi Leve Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:34 AM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Don't forget that developing a 'national' auto industry may also be one of the development goals of the Indian Government. Clearly national development goals may conflict with the development goals of other levels of government (ie the Mumbai Metropolitan Area). We generally leave it to the politicians to balance these various trade-offs, but appealing to the courts to force the debate is certainly a legitimate approach. Shanghai took an interesting approach: among other things they apparently banned cars with engine sizes less than 1600 CC. On the one hand this may seem perverse because most people clearly cannot afford cars with such a large engine size, but on the other hand it is quite clear that Shanghai would never be able to accommodate all of the vehicles that it's citizens might want to purchase. Plus this policy also serves to reinforce the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation which produces mid-sized vehicles (the Santana) under license from VW - with engine sizes of 1600! Presumably Mumbai (and many other Indian cities) is in a similar situation. People want mobility (in the sense that being able to move about gives access to more options). If people cannot get where they want to go in a convenient way, then it is not surprising that they will turn to other 'private' options such as personal motorized vehicles. India already has relatively significant rates of 'motorization' in the sense of 'motorized vehicles per capita' (not necessarily cars), so I don't know how much of a difference banning one particular type of vehicle (presumably an accessible one!) will make.... Best regards, Zvi Carlos F. Pardo wrote: Just for the sake of argument, I don't get Walter's point about congestion charging being "fairer" than banning a cheap car. Looking at it from a certain angle, congestion charging is also a "ban" from the CBD to those who only have the money to buy a car and put gas on it (most middle class people in low-income countries). It has the perverse effect that only those who have 8 pounds a day to "invest" on the London congestion charging (i.e. rich people) are the ones who have the "privilege" to ride their car inside the city (i would define that as inequity in access). All others can only use their car outside of the CBD. Am I way off? However, there is also the fact that revenue from congestion charging can be used (and is used) for improvements in public transport... I think the best is to (also) include charges to buying the car, such as the ones used in Singapore and Shanghai. The bid system is a way of controlling very low costs of vehicles while not providing any revenue for the cities to improve their public transport, NMT infrastructure, etc. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 93A # 14-17 of 708 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel/fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 carlos.pardo@sutp.org www.sutp.org Lee Schipper wrote: Thanks. we need to continue this discussion, as it is clear that the boom and bust ? either way a rapid rise in uncontrolled private motorization ? will endanger ALL indian cities, but a simple banning of the "vehicle" is a poor way of making up for authorities'/society's inability to plan and enforce! Lee Schipper Director of Research EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport 10 G St. NE Washington DC, 20002 +1202 729 7735 FAX +1202 7297775 www.embarq.wri.org "Anupam Gupta, CLSA" 7/10/2007 1:02:14 AM Hi All - I've attempted to reply to each of your points individually. Do forgive me, if I've missed anyone out and thanks very much for your answers. Alan Howes - Chandrashekhar can't ban the car. Only the legal process can. What he's said is that he will file a "Public Interest Litigation" and move the court on this issue. It will be left on the court to decide (a) whether the PIL should even be listened to at all and if yes, then to (b) hear the matter. Lee Schipper - you said "if clean, slow, safe and truly small," "Clean" - In India, Euro III norms are applicable in metros and a handful of key cities and Euro II in all other areas. Tata's car will comply with all these norms. (Note that diesel accounts for about 20% of car sales in India and we have CRDI engines although these are not mandatory). "Slow" - not sure what you meant, but its a 630cc engine and I guess the BHP will also be on the lower side. "Safe" - there are no safety requirements in India for cars. One reason why they're so attractively priced. (cheapest car in India retails at just over US$5,000). "Truly small" - we still don't know the specs, but it will have to be smaller than 4,000mm to qualify as a "small car" and get lower excise duty. I fear you bust scenario is more likely than a boom scenario. Congestion pricing in Mumbai has been specifically ruled out by the Chief Minister of Maharahstra (who also happens to be Dr. Chandrashekhar's boss). My personal view is that this car will indeed turn "more two wheeler drivers/riders into victims of l lakh four wheelers". That's where Dr. C is also coming from. Walter Hook - Indeed, banning the car would be outrageous. As outrageous as Mumbai's urban planning, which seems to be devoid of sustainability and scalability. As I mentioned above, the Govt is strictly anti-congestion pricing. As for "market-oriented parking charges" - well, that's not happening either. More and more the Govt is looking at creating supply everywhere without a thought for the longer term. For example - on parking, the Municipality has suggested building huge underground car parks in certain areas. So we're talking - more supply for parking so that more people use cars to travel more often on roads that don't expand as often. Something's not right in that. Regards, Anupam Gupta +91 22 6650 5074 Mobile +91 98204 98981 ------------------------------------------------------------- CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this Email The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). _____ -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Jul 12 02:16:46 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:16:46 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <4694D135.D997.0038.0@wri.org> References: <4694F883.9070703@inro.ca> <001101c7c3d9$59fd23b0$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> <4694D135.D997.0038.0@wri.org> Message-ID: <4695107E.7000304@greenidea.info> Lee Schipper wrote: > I would add that car OWNERSHIP can cause serious problems if street or > sidewalk parking is unrestricted/underpriced/unregulated/unenforced and > cars pile up everywhere. Having lived in Paris for years among cars on > the sidewalk, only to see cars start to pile upon the streets in Xi'an > (not to mention two wheelers in Hanoi or Indian cities), I think there > are SERIOUS problems with the keeping of vehicles on public property. > ...AND * PRAGUE is one of the most automobilised places in Europe and close to 2/3 of the width of every neighbourhood street - facade to facade - is used for car storage, and the 3 metres or so in the middle has to be there only if the cars need to be moved temporarily for street cleaning... car ownership - not use - makes the streets into mono-functional spaces AND new paid residential parking regulations will not change this. * Fluids and oils from all cars - even the new ones - leak onto the streets, poisoning wildlife and domestic animals, plants, and going into the water systems, often into bays and estuaries, untreated ...AND the construction of private parking: * Increases the cost of housing - especially negative for people who don't own cars * Creates all sorts of other environmental problems including those involved in the creation of cement ...AND the construction of cars: * Generally requires the mining of a certain mineral used in catalytic converters which has created huge contamination problems in Russia and elsewhere * Requires a significant amount of energy * Requires the eventual destruction of cars (though more are recycled, at least in the West) but still millions of tons of tyres, etc. * .. inevitably results in lots of USE. - T > >>>> "Walter Hook" 7/11/2007 12:34 PM >>> >>>> > Carlos, > > > > You are way off. Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems, > and a > lot of social benefits. The social costs are related to car USE and > overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on > location. In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution, > and > in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in > other > locations it will not. It is therefore more socially optimal to > regulate > car USE than to regulate its ownership. > > > > If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could > certainly be banned on those grounds. But a cheap car generates no > more > congestion than an expensive car. > > > > Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from > consumers to > the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for > public investments. > > It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion > benefits > will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the > aggregate > social benefits of a congestion charge. In poor areas, where there is > likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to > be > priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little > congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be > the > worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and > again > there will be no congestion relief. > > > > If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a > far > less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge. If > the > purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no > good > either. > > > > With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person > can > prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the > trip > is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge > is). > This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative > license > plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second > car, or > a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an > expensive car. > > > > Best > > Walter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf > Of Zvi Leve > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:34 AM > To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh > car > > > > Don't forget that developing a 'national' auto industry may also be one > of > the development goals of the Indian Government. Clearly national > development > goals may conflict with the development goals of other levels of > government > (ie the Mumbai Metropolitan Area). We generally leave it to the > politicians > to balance these various trade-offs, but appealing to the courts to > force > the debate is certainly a legitimate approach. > > Shanghai took an interesting approach: among other things they > apparently > banned cars with engine sizes less than 1600 CC. On the one hand this > may > seem perverse because most people clearly cannot afford cars with such > a > large engine size, but on the other hand it is quite clear that > Shanghai > would never be able to accommodate all of the vehicles that it's > citizens > might want to purchase. Plus this policy also serves to reinforce the > Shanghai Automotive Industry > Corporation which produces mid-sized vehicles (the Santana) under > license > from VW - with engine sizes of 1600! > > Presumably Mumbai (and many other Indian cities) is in a similar > situation. > People want mobility (in the sense that being able to move about gives > access to more options). If people cannot get where they want to go in > a > convenient way, then it is not surprising that they will turn to other > 'private' options such as personal motorized vehicles. India already > has > relatively significant rates of 'motorization' in the sense of > 'motorized > vehicles per capita' (not necessarily cars), so I don't know how much > of a > difference banning one particular type of vehicle (presumably an > accessible > one!) will make.... > > Best regards, > > Zvi > > > Carlos F. Pardo wrote: > > Just for the sake of argument, I don't get Walter's point about > congestion > charging being "fairer" than banning a cheap car. Looking at it from a > certain angle, congestion charging is also a "ban" from the CBD to > those who > only have the money to buy a car and put gas on it (most middle class > people > in low-income countries). It has the perverse effect that only those > who > have 8 pounds a day to "invest" on the London congestion charging (i.e. > rich > people) are the ones who have the "privilege" to ride their car inside > the > city (i would define that as inequity in access). All others can only > use > their car outside of the CBD. Am I way off? > > However, there is also the fact that revenue from congestion charging > can be > used (and is used) for improvements in public transport... > > I think the best is to (also) include charges to buying the car, such > as the > ones used in Singapore and Shanghai. The bid system is a way of > controlling > very low costs of vehicles while not providing any revenue for the > cities to > improve their public transport, NMT infrastructure, etc. > > Best regards, > > > > Carlos F. Pardo > Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator > GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) > Cl 93A # 14-17 of 708 > Bogot? D.C., Colombia > Tel/fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 > carlos.pardo@sutp.org www.sutp.org > > > > Lee Schipper wrote: > > Thanks. we need to continue this discussion, as it is clear that the > boom and bust ? either way a rapid rise in uncontrolled private > motorization ? will endanger ALL indian cities, but a simple banning > of the "vehicle" is a poor way of making up for authorities'/society's > inability to plan and enforce! > > Lee Schipper > Director of Research > EMBARQ, the WRI Center > for Sustainable Transport > 10 G St. NE > Washington DC, 20002 > +1202 729 7735 > FAX +1202 7297775 > www.embarq.wri.org > > > > "Anupam Gupta, CLSA" > > 7/10/2007 1:02:14 AM > > > > Hi All - I've attempted to reply to each of your points individually. > Do > forgive me, if I've missed anyone out and thanks very much for your > answers. > > > Alan Howes - Chandrashekhar can't ban the car. Only the legal process > can. > What he's said is that he will file a "Public Interest Litigation" and > move > the court on this issue. It will be left on the court to decide (a) > whether > the PIL should even be listened to at all and if yes, then to (b) hear > the > matter. > > Lee Schipper - you said "if clean, slow, safe and truly small," > > "Clean" - In India, Euro III norms are applicable in metros and a > handful of > key cities and Euro II in all other areas. Tata's car will comply with > all > these norms. (Note that diesel accounts for about 20% of car sales in > India > and we have CRDI engines although these are not mandatory). > > "Slow" - not sure what you meant, but its a 630cc engine and I guess > the BHP > will also be on the lower side. > > "Safe" - there are no safety requirements in India for cars. One > reason > why > they're so attractively priced. (cheapest car in India retails at just > over > US$5,000). > > "Truly small" - we still don't know the specs, but it will have to be > smaller than 4,000mm to qualify as a "small car" and get lower excise > duty. > I fear you bust scenario is more likely than a boom scenario. > > Congestion pricing in Mumbai has been specifically ruled out by the > Chief > Minister of Maharahstra (who also happens to be Dr. Chandrashekhar's > boss). > My personal view is that this car will indeed turn "more two wheeler > drivers/riders into victims of l lakh four wheelers". That's where Dr. > C is > also coming from. > > Walter Hook - Indeed, banning the car would be outrageous. As > outrageous as > Mumbai's urban planning, which seems to be devoid of sustainability > and > scalability. As I mentioned above, the Govt is strictly > anti-congestion > pricing. As for "market-oriented parking charges" - well, that's not > happening either. More and more the Govt is looking at creating supply > everywhere without a thought for the longer term. For example - on > parking, > the Municipality has suggested building huge underground car parks in > certain areas. So we're talking - more supply for parking so that more > people use cars to travel more often on roads that don't expand as > often. > Something's not right in that. > > > > Regards, > Anupam Gupta > +91 22 6650 5074 > Mobile +91 98204 98981 > > > -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Jul 12 02:23:30 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:23:30 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <002001c7c3de$86f8d940$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> References: <002001c7c3de$86f8d940$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> Message-ID: <46951212.2020509@greenidea.info> Walter Hook wrote: > I would argue this is not a problem inherent in car ownership but rather a > function of undercharging for parking on public roads. Parking is a > function of use, not of ownership > LESS of all sorts of parking is needed when cars are owned communally (carshare) meaning that parking is a function of ownership -- or how cars are owned. Also, the construction costs of underground or overground public and private parking is not internalised.... all those construction lorries destroying the roads, poisoning the air... - T > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf > Of Lee Schipper > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:47 PM > To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' > Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > > I would add that car OWNERSHIP can cause serious problems if street or > sidewalk parking is unrestricted/underpriced/unregulated/unenforced and > cars pile up everywhere. Having lived in Paris for years among cars on > the sidewalk, only to see cars start to pile upon the streets in Xi'an > (not to mention two wheelers in Hanoi or Indian cities), I think there > are SERIOUS problems with the keeping of vehicles on public property. > > >>>> "Walter Hook" 7/11/2007 12:34 PM >>> >>>> > Carlos, > > > > You are way off. Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems, > and a > lot of social benefits. The social costs are related to car USE and > overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on > location. In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution, > and > in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in > other > locations it will not. It is therefore more socially optimal to > regulate > car USE than to regulate its ownership. > > > > If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could > certainly be banned on those grounds. But a cheap car generates no > more > congestion than an expensive car. > > > > Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from > consumers to > the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for > public investments. > > It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion > benefits > will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the > aggregate > social benefits of a congestion charge. In poor areas, where there is > likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to > be > priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little > congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be > the > worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and > again > there will be no congestion relief. > > > > If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a > far > less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge. If > the > purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no > good > either. > > > > With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person > can > prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the > trip > is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge > is). > This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative > license > plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second > car, or > a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an > expensive car. > > > > Best > > Walter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On > Behalf > Of Zvi Leve > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:34 AM > To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh > car > > > > Don't forget that developing a 'national' auto industry may also be one > of > the development goals of the Indian Government. Clearly national > development > goals may conflict with the development goals of other levels of > government > (ie the Mumbai Metropolitan Area). We generally leave it to the > politicians > to balance these various trade-offs, but appealing to the courts to > force > the debate is certainly a legitimate approach. > > Shanghai took an interesting approach: among other things they > apparently > banned cars with engine sizes less than 1600 CC. On the one hand this > may > seem perverse because most people clearly cannot afford cars with such > a > large engine size, but on the other hand it is quite clear that > Shanghai > would never be able to accommodate all of the vehicles that it's > citizens > might want to purchase. Plus this policy also serves to reinforce the > Shanghai Automotive Industry > Corporation which produces mid-sized vehicles (the Santana) under > license > from VW - with engine sizes of 1600! > > Presumably Mumbai (and many other Indian cities) is in a similar > situation. > People want mobility (in the sense that being able to move about gives > access to more options). If people cannot get where they want to go in > a > convenient way, then it is not surprising that they will turn to other > 'private' options such as personal motorized vehicles. India already > has > relatively significant rates of 'motorization' in the sense of > 'motorized > vehicles per capita' (not necessarily cars), so I don't know how much > of a > difference banning one particular type of vehicle (presumably an > accessible > one!) will make.... > > Best regards, > > Zvi > > > Carlos F. Pardo wrote: > > Just for the sake of argument, I don't get Walter's point about > congestion > charging being "fairer" than banning a cheap car. Looking at it from a > certain angle, congestion charging is also a "ban" from the CBD to > those who > only have the money to buy a car and put gas on it (most middle class > people > in low-income countries). It has the perverse effect that only those > who > have 8 pounds a day to "invest" on the London congestion charging (i.e. > rich > people) are the ones who have the "privilege" to ride their car inside > the > city (i would define that as inequity in access). All others can only > use > their car outside of the CBD. Am I way off? > > However, there is also the fact that revenue from congestion charging > can be > used (and is used) for improvements in public transport... > > I think the best is to (also) include charges to buying the car, such > as the > ones used in Singapore and Shanghai. The bid system is a way of > controlling > very low costs of vehicles while not providing any revenue for the > cities to > improve their public transport, NMT infrastructure, etc. > > Best regards, > > > > Carlos F. Pardo > Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator > GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) > Cl 93A # 14-17 of 708 > Bogot? D.C., Colombia > Tel/fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 > carlos.pardo@sutp.org www.sutp.org > > > > Lee Schipper wrote: > > Thanks. we need to continue this discussion, as it is clear that the > boom and bust ? either way a rapid rise in uncontrolled private > motorization ? will endanger ALL indian cities, but a simple banning > of the "vehicle" is a poor way of making up for authorities'/society's > inability to plan and enforce! > > Lee Schipper > Director of Research > EMBARQ, the WRI Center > for Sustainable Transport > 10 G St. NE > Washington DC, 20002 > +1202 729 7735 > FAX +1202 7297775 > www.embarq.wri.org > > > > "Anupam Gupta, CLSA" > > 7/10/2007 1:02:14 AM > > > > Hi All - I've attempted to reply to each of your points individually. > Do > forgive me, if I've missed anyone out and thanks very much for your > answers. > > > Alan Howes - Chandrashekhar can't ban the car. Only the legal process > can. > What he's said is that he will file a "Public Interest Litigation" and > move > the court on this issue. It will be left on the court to decide (a) > whether > the PIL should even be listened to at all and if yes, then to (b) hear > the > matter. > > Lee Schipper - you said "if clean, slow, safe and truly small," > > "Clean" - In India, Euro III norms are applicable in metros and a > handful of > key cities and Euro II in all other areas. Tata's car will comply with > all > these norms. (Note that diesel accounts for about 20% of car sales in > India > and we have CRDI engines although these are not mandatory). > > "Slow" - not sure what you meant, but its a 630cc engine and I guess > the BHP > will also be on the lower side. > > "Safe" - there are no safety requirements in India for cars. One > reason > why > they're so attractively priced. (cheapest car in India retails at just > over > US$5,000). > > "Truly small" - we still don't know the specs, but it will have to be > smaller than 4,000mm to qualify as a "small car" and get lower excise > duty. > I fear you bust scenario is more likely than a boom scenario. > > Congestion pricing in Mumbai has been specifically ruled out by the > Chief > Minister of Maharahstra (who also happens to be Dr. Chandrashekhar's > boss). > My personal view is that this car will indeed turn "more two wheeler > drivers/riders into victims of l lakh four wheelers". That's where Dr. > C is > also coming from. > > Walter Hook - Indeed, banning the car would be outrageous. As > outrageous as > Mumbai's urban planning, which seems to be devoid of sustainability > and > scalability. As I mentioned above, the Govt is strictly > anti-congestion > pricing. As for "market-oriented parking charges" - well, that's not > happening either. More and more the Govt is looking at creating supply > everywhere without a thought for the longer term. For example - on > parking, > the Municipality has suggested building huge underground car parks in > certain areas. So we're talking - more supply for parking so that more > people use cars to travel more often on roads that don't expand as > often. > Something's not right in that. > > > > Regards, > Anupam Gupta > +91 22 6650 5074 > Mobile +91 98204 98981 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing > this Email > > The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and > Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at > https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via > YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to > join > the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The > yahoogroups > version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real > sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you > can). > Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries > (the 'Global South'). > > > > > > > _____ > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via > YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to > join > the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The > yahoogroups > version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real > sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you > can). > Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries > (the 'Global South'). > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via > YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join > the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups > version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real > sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). > Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). > > -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From lwright at vivacities.org Thu Jul 12 02:31:46 2007 From: lwright at vivacities.org (Lloyd Wright) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 12:31:46 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <001101c7c3d9$59fd23b0$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> Message-ID: <002201c7c3e1$5d354aa0$6500a8c0@Nikita> Well, there are some environmental issues related to car OWNERSHIP. >From a CO2 standpoint, about 22% (US) to 30% (Europe) of the total emissions emanate not from usage but from manufacturing and disposal. There is also significant solid waste produced in manufacturing and disposal. The German EPA did an interesting study a few years back tracing the solid waste of car manufacturing from a cradle to grave analysis. To manufacture a one metric ton vehicle, about 20 metric tons of waste is produced (most of which is mining tailings from iron ore processing), and most of this waste is incurred in developing nations. There are also a fair number of studies suggesting that auto manufacturing can be an inefficient economic transaction, which in turn has opportunity costs affecting investments elsewhere (e.g. nutrition, education, and healthcare). The automated nature of auto manufacturing today means it has a very poor employment multiplier when compared to alternative uses of capital. Bottom line...we should also be a bit concerned about OWNERSHIP, although I certainly agree that USE is a serious issue. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+lwright=vivacities.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+lwright=vivacities.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Walter Hook Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:34 AM To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Carlos, You are way off. Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems, and a lot of social benefits. The social costs are related to car USE and overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on location. In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution, and in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in other locations it will not. It is therefore more socially optimal to regulate car USE than to regulate its ownership. If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could certainly be banned on those grounds. But a cheap car generates no more congestion than an expensive car. Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from consumers to the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for public investments. It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion benefits will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the aggregate social benefits of a congestion charge. In poor areas, where there is likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to be priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be the worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and again there will be no congestion relief. If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a far less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge. If the purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no good either. With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person can prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the trip is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge is). This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative license plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second car, or a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an expensive car. Best Walter of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070711/8c64b12d/attachment.html From pendakur at interchange.ubc.ca Thu Jul 12 02:25:29 2007 From: pendakur at interchange.ubc.ca (pendakur) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Message-ID: <7283950.1184174729305.JavaMail.myubc2@brahms.my.ubc.ca> What is urgently required is a policy on urban transport (person trips) including a policy on all MVs (all cars not just cheap cars), cyclists and pedestrians. Merely banning small r cheap cars would not stand up in courts. On the other hand, banning MVs on the basis of emissions would probably be permitted by the courts (we are all guessing!). Reducing the number of cars coming into Mumbai is a good start if complimented with the supply of other transport options. We need to be comprehensive and inculdue all modes. Draconian restrictions, even if allowed by the courts, will not work. Setty Pendakur -----Original Message----- > Date: Mon Jul 09 14:05:30 PDT 2007 > From: "Walter Hook" > Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > To: "'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'" > > The spirit is good, but the means seems very wrong headed to me. What is > the legal precedent? That governments should be allowed to ban certain > categories of vehicles from city streets if the price of the vehicle is too > low? This is outrageous. A 1 lak car consumes no more road space than a > car costing much more. > > > > I would encourage the MMRDA to look into traffic cells, congestion charging > and market-oriented parking charges as more rational policies for allocating > scarce public road space in Mumbai. > > > > Walter > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf > Of Alan Howes > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:25 PM > To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > > > > But leaving aside the questions of political acceptability, how could > Chandrashekhar ban the 1 lakh car in Greater Mumbai when the rest of India > accepts it? > > > > But I agree with his analysis. > > > > Alan > > > > -- > Alan Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Anupam Gupta, CLSA > > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 7:37 AM > > Subject: [sustran] MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > > > > MMRDA is the regional planning authority for Mumbai. It reports to the Chief > Minister. MMRDA Chief, Dr. T. Chandrashekhar, has an impressive track record > of work in Thane. In Mumbai, he's been caught between the politicians and > the BMC. To give him credit, there's a lot of work he's had done on the > roads. However - and see below - this is the first time he's taking such a > strong stance. The battle between free enterprise and urban planning? I'm on > the MMRDA chief's side on this one. I just hope this posturing doesn't ruin > his career, because ultimately its the politicians who are in charge. > Somehow I just can't see this litigation stand in court. Would love your > thoughts. > > > > http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1108645 > > > > > > MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > > MUMBAI: When the Tatas launch their Rs1 lakh car some time next year, they > could face a roadblock in Mumbai. T Chandrashekhar, who heads the Mumbai > Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), the agency entrusted with > the task of implementing the city's multi-crore infrastructure projects, > says that he would be the first to file a public interest litigation (PIL) > to stop the car's rollout in the city. > > Chandrashekhar believes that the city will never taste the fruits of its > infrastructure investments unless it rations the use of road space and > private vehicles. "The Tata car cannot be permitted (into the city) as it > would choke up Mumbai. The low cost would mean that all those who can afford > bikes will jump into the car segment. Then, no road space will be enough to > hold the sea of vehicles. The city will be doomed," he warns. > > As metropolitan commissioner, Chandrashekhar is in charge of redeveloping > 150 km of roads in Mumbai, which includes both the Eastern and Western > Express Highways and the new east-west connecting roads - the > Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road (JVLR) and the Santa Cruz-Chembur Link Road > (SCLR). He wants the state government to initiate strict vehicle rationing. > > "Today, people are buying vehicles like they purchase chocolates. Only those > citizens who have parking space must be allowed to buy cars. There should be > a fixed quota of new vehicles sold in Mumbai. And like London and Paris, the > city must levy a congestion tax to de-clog the roads," he adds. The MMRDA > chief cautioned that in the next five years, all the roads and flyovers will > be inadequate if vehicular growth is not controlled. > > That apart, Chandrashekhar also wants to control the influx of job-seekers > in Mumbai. He wants the city to introduce a work permit regime in Mumbai. > "Only those having a work permit and a valid house must be provided basic > amenities like ration card, telephone connection and power supply," he said. > > > > > Regards, > > Anupam Gupta > > +91 22 6650 5074 > > Mobile +91 98204 98981 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before printing this > Email > > > > The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and Regulatory > Notices, which can be viewed at https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent > to you upon request. > > > > > _____ > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via > YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join > the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups > version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real > sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). > Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -- Dr. V. Setty Pendakur, President Pacific Policy and Planning Associates Suite # 702-- 1099 Marinaside Crescent Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 2Z3 Ph: 604-263-3576; Fax: 604-263-6493 From SCHIPPER at wri.org Thu Jul 12 03:42:31 2007 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:42:31 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <002201c7c3e1$5d354aa0$6500a8c0@Nikita> References: <001101c7c3d9$59fd23b0$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> <002201c7c3e1$5d354aa0$6500a8c0@Nikita> Message-ID: <4694EC56.D997.0038.0@wri.org> I think I disagree with Lloyd's number-- a rule of thumb is about 10% of the lifetime energy of car goes for the car, 5% for the refined fuel and the rest to run the car. The calculation is obviously very sensitive to the fuel economy of the car (which is roughly inverse to the weight, and therefore to the amount of energy required to create all that weight) as well as to the lifetime of the car expressed in total km run. Perhaps the German EPA has different assumptions, but ones I poured over once with both Volvo and VW (in 1997) came out with numbers like those I quoted above. For the US, cars are 35% heavier than those in Europe, but they are run 35% more and use 35% more fuel/km, and they are not forced-retired as some countries do when cars get old and phunky. Hence the relationship Lloyd expressed -- a smaller share of lifetime emissions is bound up in the car in the US than in Europe -- is true At the end of the day it comes down to what the car is made of, and whether the masses of aluminium and steel are made mostly with coal (like in Australia, where the electricity for the Aluminium is coal-fired), natural gas, or some combination of those two plus hydro and nuclear (the Swedish case). IF steel or Al is imported that makes it even more complicated. My best guess is more like 15% for the US and 20% of a much smaller total number for Europe. >>> "Lloyd Wright" 7/11/2007 1:31 PM >>> Well, there are some environmental issues related to car OWNERSHIP. >From a CO2 standpoint, about 22% (US) to 30% (Europe) of the total emissions emanate not from usage but from manufacturing and disposal. There is also significant solid waste produced in manufacturing and disposal. The German EPA did an interesting study a few years back tracing the solid waste of car manufacturing from a cradle to grave analysis. To manufacture a one metric ton vehicle, about 20 metric tons of waste is produced (most of which is mining tailings from iron ore processing), and most of this waste is incurred in developing nations. There are also a fair number of studies suggesting that auto manufacturing can be an inefficient economic transaction, which in turn has opportunity costs affecting investments elsewhere (e.g. nutrition, education, and healthcare). The automated nature of auto manufacturing today means it has a very poor employment multiplier when compared to alternative uses of capital. Bottom line...we should also be a bit concerned about OWNERSHIP, although I certainly agree that USE is a serious issue. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+lwright=vivacities.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+lwright=vivacities.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Walter Hook Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:34 AM To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Carlos, You are way off. Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems, and a lot of social benefits. The social costs are related to car USE and overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on location. In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution, and in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in other locations it will not. It is therefore more socially optimal to regulate car USE than to regulate its ownership. If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could certainly be banned on those grounds. But a cheap car generates no more congestion than an expensive car. Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from consumers to the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for public investments. It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion benefits will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the aggregate social benefits of a congestion charge. In poor areas, where there is likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to be priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be the worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and again there will be no congestion relief. If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a far less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge. If the purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no good either. With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person can prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the trip is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge is). This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative license plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second car, or a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an expensive car. Best Walter of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From whook at itdp.org Thu Jul 12 04:38:06 2007 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:38:06 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <4694EC56.D997.0038.0@wri.org> Message-ID: <001e01c7c3f3$04aa5710$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> Ok, fair enough, there are no doubt social externalities related to the production of cars that are not internalized in the cost of the car. There certainly is a justification for charging licensing fees and vehicle procurement taxes, and there are other ways to internalize these costs. But a cheap car is no more likely than an expensive car to have production externalities, so again the justification of a ban on the car because it is cheap is very weak. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lee Schipper Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:43 PM To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; lwright@vivacities.org Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car I think I disagree with Lloyd's number-- a rule of thumb is about 10% of the lifetime energy of car goes for the car, 5% for the refined fuel and the rest to run the car. The calculation is obviously very sensitive to the fuel economy of the car (which is roughly inverse to the weight, and therefore to the amount of energy required to create all that weight) as well as to the lifetime of the car expressed in total km run. Perhaps the German EPA has different assumptions, but ones I poured over once with both Volvo and VW (in 1997) came out with numbers like those I quoted above. For the US, cars are 35% heavier than those in Europe, but they are run 35% more and use 35% more fuel/km, and they are not forced-retired as some countries do when cars get old and phunky. Hence the relationship Lloyd expressed -- a smaller share of lifetime emissions is bound up in the car in the US than in Europe -- is true At the end of the day it comes down to what the car is made of, and whether the masses of aluminium and steel are made mostly with coal (like in Australia, where the electricity for the Aluminium is coal-fired), natural gas, or some combination of those two plus hydro and nuclear (the Swedish case). IF steel or Al is imported that makes it even more complicated. My best guess is more like 15% for the US and 20% of a much smaller total number for Europe. >>> "Lloyd Wright" 7/11/2007 1:31 PM >>> Well, there are some environmental issues related to car OWNERSHIP. >From a CO2 standpoint, about 22% (US) to 30% (Europe) of the total emissions emanate not from usage but from manufacturing and disposal. There is also significant solid waste produced in manufacturing and disposal. The German EPA did an interesting study a few years back tracing the solid waste of car manufacturing from a cradle to grave analysis. To manufacture a one metric ton vehicle, about 20 metric tons of waste is produced (most of which is mining tailings from iron ore processing), and most of this waste is incurred in developing nations. There are also a fair number of studies suggesting that auto manufacturing can be an inefficient economic transaction, which in turn has opportunity costs affecting investments elsewhere (e.g. nutrition, education, and healthcare). The automated nature of auto manufacturing today means it has a very poor employment multiplier when compared to alternative uses of capital. Bottom line...we should also be a bit concerned about OWNERSHIP, although I certainly agree that USE is a serious issue. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+lwright=vivacities.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+lwright=vivacities.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Walter Hook Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 11:34 AM To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Carlos, You are way off. Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems, and a lot of social benefits. The social costs are related to car USE and overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on location. In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution, and in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in other locations it will not. It is therefore more socially optimal to regulate car USE than to regulate its ownership. If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could certainly be banned on those grounds. But a cheap car generates no more congestion than an expensive car. Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from consumers to the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for public investments. It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion benefits will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the aggregate social benefits of a congestion charge. In poor areas, where there is likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to be priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be the worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and again there will be no congestion relief. If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a far less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge. If the purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no good either. With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person can prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the trip is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge is). This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative license plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second car, or a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an expensive car. Best Walter of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From lwright at vivacities.org Thu Jul 12 05:34:14 2007 From: lwright at vivacities.org (Lloyd Wright) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:34:14 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <4694EC56.D997.0038.0@wri.org> Message-ID: <000001c7c3fa$dac0b090$6500a8c0@Nikita> Hi Lee, The numbers I quoted are from a UK study by Martin Michaelis, which was based on a cradle to grave approach (including the mining of aluminum and/or steel from Australia, Nigeria, etc.). Perhaps the Volvo / VW numbers are based on what happens inside their factory walls. But given the number of variables, I am sure it is highly dependent on the assumptions made. I would be keen on any studies / citations that you might have. In case you are interested, I am ataching a couple summary pages from the German study on solid waste from manufacturing and disposal. Whether manufacturing/disposal is 15-20% or 20-30% of total lifetime CO2 emissions, I am sure we would agree that it is a non-trivial amount. Thanks, Lloyd -----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:SCHIPPER@wri.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:43 PM To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; lwright@vivacities.org Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car I think I disagree with Lloyd's number-- a rule of thumb is about 10% of the lifetime energy of car goes for the car, 5% for the refined fuel and the rest to run the car. The calculation is obviously very sensitive to the fuel economy of the car (which is roughly inverse to the weight, and therefore to the amount of energy required to create all that weight) as well as to the lifetime of the car expressed in total km run. Perhaps the German EPA has different assumptions, but ones I poured over once with both Volvo and VW (in 1997) came out with numbers like those I quoted above. For the US, cars are 35% heavier than those in Europe, but they are run 35% more and use 35% more fuel/km, and they are not forced-retired as some countries do when cars get old and phunky. Hence the relationship Lloyd expressed -- a smaller share of lifetime emissions is bound up in the car in the US than in Europe -- is true At the end of the day it comes down to what the car is made of, and whether the masses of aluminium and steel are made mostly with coal (like in Australia, where the electricity for the Aluminium is coal-fired), natural gas, or some combination of those two plus hydro and nuclear (the Swedish case). IF steel or Al is imported that makes it even more complicated. My best guess is more like 15% for the US and 20% of a much smaller total number for Europe. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Page 1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 71644 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070711/ff6411f5/Page1.jpg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Page 3.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 61786 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070711/ff6411f5/Page3.jpg From SCHIPPER at wri.org Thu Jul 12 05:39:56 2007 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:39:56 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <000001c7c3fa$dac0b090$6500a8c0@Nikita> References: <4694EC56.D997.0038.0@wri.org> <000001c7c3fa$dac0b090$6500a8c0@Nikita> Message-ID: <469507DB.D997.0038.0@wri.org> Thanks Lloyd. You know there was a fraud recently perpetrated as someone claimed (and columnist George Will cited) that a Prius used more energy over its lifetime than a hummer. The clown who made the comparison assumed that a hummer lasted 3 times longer (so he could write off the energy invested in the hummer over more miles) yet somehow used far less fuel/km...Its all in the assumptions and in where the boundaries are drawn! The manufacturing is a non trivial amount in any case. >>> "Lloyd Wright" 7/11/2007 4:34 PM >>> Hi Lee, The numbers I quoted are from a UK study by Martin Michaelis, which was based on a cradle to grave approach (including the mining of aluminum and/or steel from Australia, Nigeria, etc.). Perhaps the Volvo / VW numbers are based on what happens inside their factory walls. But given the number of variables, I am sure it is highly dependent on the assumptions made. I would be keen on any studies / citations that you might have. In case you are interested, I am ataching a couple summary pages from the German study on solid waste from manufacturing and disposal. Whether manufacturing/disposal is 15-20% or 20-30% of total lifetime CO2 emissions, I am sure we would agree that it is a non-trivial amount. Thanks, Lloyd -----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:SCHIPPER@wri.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:43 PM To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; lwright@vivacities.org Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car I think I disagree with Lloyd's number-- a rule of thumb is about 10% of the lifetime energy of car goes for the car, 5% for the refined fuel and the rest to run the car. The calculation is obviously very sensitive to the fuel economy of the car (which is roughly inverse to the weight, and therefore to the amount of energy required to create all that weight) as well as to the lifetime of the car expressed in total km run. Perhaps the German EPA has different assumptions, but ones I poured over once with both Volvo and VW (in 1997) came out with numbers like those I quoted above. For the US, cars are 35% heavier than those in Europe, but they are run 35% more and use 35% more fuel/km, and they are not forced-retired as some countries do when cars get old and phunky. Hence the relationship Lloyd expressed -- a smaller share of lifetime emissions is bound up in the car in the US than in Europe -- is true At the end of the day it comes down to what the car is made of, and whether the masses of aluminium and steel are made mostly with coal (like in Australia, where the electricity for the Aluminium is coal-fired), natural gas, or some combination of those two plus hydro and nuclear (the Swedish case). IF steel or Al is imported that makes it even more complicated. My best guess is more like 15% for the US and 20% of a much smaller total number for Europe. From czegras at MIT.EDU Thu Jul 12 13:30:38 2007 From: czegras at MIT.EDU (P. Christopher Zegras) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:30:38 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Message-ID: <4695AE6E.7000605@mit.edu> The most recent estimates I've seen for a 2001 US gasoline-powered "family sedan" suggests that fuel use (well to wheels) accounts for >90% of lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (~70% from the vehicle on road cycle and ~22% from the fuel cycle); the rest, about 8% comes from the vehicle life-cycle: (Schafer, A., Heywood, J., Weiss, M., 2006. Future fuel cell and internal combustion engine automobile technologies: a 25-year life cycle and fleet impact assessment. Energy 31 (12), 2064?2087.) Ignoring that, it's not just about USE, as vehicle storage is an oft-externalized cost. Here in Cambridge MA, for example, one gets rights to a car-sized piece of pavement for residential on-street parking for US$8/year - far below the annualized cost of the space. And of course, this fee does not vary, whether it be a Hummer or a Yugo that you're trying to park (actually, [thankfully?] Cambridge probably has very few of either of those vehicle types...) cz Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car From: "Lee Schipper" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:39:56 -0400 To: "Sustran" , Thanks Lloyd. You know there was a fraud recently perpetrated as someone claimed (and columnist George Will cited) that a Prius used more energy over its lifetime than a hummer. The clown who made the comparison assumed that a hummer lasted 3 times longer (so he could write off the energy invested in the hummer over more miles) yet somehow used far less fuel/km...Its all in the assumptions and in where the boundaries are drawn! The manufacturing is a non trivial amount in any case. >>> >>> "Lloyd Wright" 7/11/2007 4:34 PM >>> Hi Lee, The numbers I quoted are from a UK study by Martin Michaelis, which was based on a cradle to grave approach (including the mining of aluminum and/or steel from Australia, Nigeria, etc.). Perhaps the Volvo / VW numbers are based on what happens inside their factory walls. But given the number of variables, I am sure it is highly dependent on the assumptions made. I would be keen on any studies / citations that you might have. In case you are interested, I am ataching a couple summary pages from the German study on solid waste from manufacturing and disposal. Whether manufacturing/disposal is 15-20% or 20-30% of total lifetime CO2 emissions, I am sure we would agree that it is a non-trivial amount. Thanks, Lloyd -----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:SCHIPPER@wri.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:43 PM To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; lwright@vivacities.org Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car I think I disagree with Lloyd's number-- a rule of thumb is about 10% of the lifetime energy of car goes for the car, 5% for the refined fuel and the rest to run the car. The calculation is obviously very sensitive to the fuel economy of the car (which is roughly inverse to the weight, and therefore to the amount of energy required to create all that weight) as well as to the lifetime of the car expressed in total km run. Perhaps the German EPA has different assumptions, but ones I poured over once with both Volvo and VW (in 1997) came out with numbers like those I quoted above. For the US, cars are 35% heavier than those in Europe, but they are run 35% more and use 35% more fuel/km, and they are not forced-retired as some countries do when cars get old and phunky. Hence the relationship Lloyd expressed -- a smaller share of lifetime emissions is bound up in the car in the US than in Europe -- is true At the end of the day it comes down to what the car is made of, and whether the masses of aluminium and steel are made mostly with coal (like in Australia, where the electricity for the Aluminium is coal-fired), natural gas, or some combination of those two plus hydro and nuclear (the Swedish case). IF steel or Al is imported that makes it even more complicated. My best guess is more like 15% for the US and 20% of a much smaller total number for Europe. From chuwasg at yahoo.com Thu Jul 12 15:56:19 2007 From: chuwasg at yahoo.com (chuwa) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:56:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Message-ID: <394409.11911.qm@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks to everyone, this thread has been highly stimulating and educating for me. I hope not to distract the discussion but just chance upon this article (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares1/) which make a interesting connection back to the current discussion of banning cheap cars. What can be more compelling than "cheap car"? What if instead of banning "cheap car", there is someone offering free & good public buses in Mumbai? To go all the ay, perhaps it can be a profitable business model to offer this service for free in exchange of an opportunity to be in touch with the mass. Like JCDecaux sponsor street furniture, or Google offer excellent free search engine for the world, both to capture a critical "touch point' with the mass. In Singapore, there are several "free" bus routes linking large shopping malls and MRT stations. Mentioned in the article, high quality free bus service in Hasselt, Belgium has been expended 500% since it started in 1996 and now has a ridership close to 4 Millions. -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070711/d5063181/attachment.html From sunny.enie at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 17:29:47 2007 From: sunny.enie at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:29:47 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <394409.11911.qm@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <394409.11911.qm@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4695E67B.6050309@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070712/46b30f28/attachment.html From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Jul 12 17:35:02 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:35:02 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <394409.11911.qm@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <394409.11911.qm@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4695E7B6.5090707@greenidea.info> Hi, chuwa wrote: > Thanks to everyone, this thread has been highly stimulating and > educating for me. > > I hope not to distract the discussion but just chance upon this > article (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares1/) which make a > interesting connection back to the current discussion of banning cheap > cars. What can be more compelling than "cheap car"? What if instead of > banning "cheap car", there is someone offering free & good public > buses in Mumbai? > To go all the ay, perhaps it can be a profitable business model to > offer this service for free in exchange of an opportunity to be in > touch with the mass. Like JCDecaux sponsor street furniture REMEMBER their advertising will be likely to pollute in other ways... > , or Google offer excellent free search engine for the world, both to > capture a critical "touch point' with the mass. > In Singapore, there are several "free" bus routes linking large > shopping malls and MRT stations. THERE are big environmental, social and business problems with large shopping malls... I also think they use the "free" buses to "hook" people on the malls so that when they get a car they continue to go there. People don't not get a car because of one free bus to one mall. > Mentioned in the article, high quality free bus service in Hasselt, > Belgium has been expended 500% since it started in 1996 and now has a > ridership close to 4 Millions. ON the other hand Hasselt is a dream come true. - T > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via > YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss > to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The > yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post > to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it > seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries (the 'Global South'). > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From regina at wholechoice.net Thu Jul 12 18:45:09 2007 From: regina at wholechoice.net (Gina Anderson) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:45:09 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <4695E67B.6050309@gmail.com> References: <394409.11911.qm@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4695E67B.6050309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070712174509.cif53jk62nwg8884@www.wholechoice.net> Note, para 3 below, people do not complain in Sg because they can't, so take that evidence with a grain of salt. The free bus services here are not the best of the examples noted, they are not well used; but some of the other free bus services mentioned are great, excellent idea thrown in. Gina -- Regina Anderson, AICP WholeChoice Master Planning, Pedestrian Design, Sustainability Singapore phone +65 6467-6594 Quoting Sunny : > Yes, Chuwa has a point. Providing free public transport will be > a good option and it could be financed thru parking charges and car > taxes. Just to add to the examples mentioned Perth, Australia has > this service called CAT and they are like 3 different circular routes > and the service is free and I was told that it is funded by the > parking charges. > > Bangkok on the other hand provides free shuttle service to some of > its skytrain (BTS) stations. IMO, Bangkok could also provide free NMT > (rickshaws) into the small streets (sois) if this could be done the > use of motorbike taxi could be reduced to a great extent. > > Singapore is definitely an example and it is also worth noting that > people seldom complain of the economic instruments as they have > affordable public transport and other alternatives to a car. > > So, in the end it again comes to putting more financial burden on car > USERS and also to some extent on car owners. Making the car travel > hard and at the same time providing affordable, safe and convenient > (sustainable)? public transport would be the solution. > > kind regards > > * > * > > Santhosh K. (Sunny) Kodukula > Project Assistant > GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) > Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP ESCAP UN Building > Rajadamnern Nok Rd. Bangkok 10200, Thailand > Tel: ?+66 (0) 2 - 288 ?1321 > Fax: +66 (0) 2 - 280 ?6042 > Mobile: +66 (0) 84?113-0181 > e-mail: santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org[1] > Website: www.sutp.org[2] > Skype: sunny_nwho > > chuwa wrote: Thanks to everyone, this thread has been highly > stimulating and educating for me. > > I hope not to distract the discussion but just chance upon this > article (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares1/) which make a > interesting connection back to the current discussion of banning > cheap cars. What can be more compelling than "cheap car"? What if > instead of banning "cheap car", there is someone offering free & good > public buses in Mumbai? > To go all the ay, perhaps it can be a profitable business model to > offer this service for free in exchange of an opportunity to be in > touch with the mass. Like JCDecaux sponsor street furniture, or > Google offer excellent free search engine for the world, both to > capture a critical "touch point' with the mass. > In Singapore, there are several "free" bus routes linking large > shopping malls and MRT stations. Mentioned in the article, high > quality free bus service in Hasselt, Belgium has been expended 500% > since it started in 1996 and now has a ridership close to 4 Millions. > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] mailto:santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org > [2] http://www.sutp.org > From SCHIPPER at wri.org Thu Jul 12 20:33:37 2007 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:33:37 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <4695AE6E.7000605@mit.edu> References: <4695AE6E.7000605@mit.edu> Message-ID: <4695D9510200003800010B7A@HERMES.wri.org> These are all consistent with each other. Wow I am going to move to CAmbridge. Our on street pass i DC is a whopping $30/two years, again way below the value of the space. >>> "P. Christopher Zegras" 7/12/2007 12:30:38 AM >>> The most recent estimates I've seen for a 2001 US gasoline-powered "family sedan" suggests that fuel use (well to wheels) accounts for >90% of lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (~70% from the vehicle on road cycle and ~22% from the fuel cycle); the rest, about 8% comes from the vehicle life-cycle: (Schafer, A., Heywood, J., Weiss, M., 2006. Future fuel cell and internal combustion engine automobile technologies: a 25-year life cycle and fleet impact assessment. Energy 31 (12), 2064?2087.) Ignoring that, it's not just about USE, as vehicle storage is an oft-externalized cost. Here in Cambridge MA, for example, one gets rights to a car-sized piece of pavement for residential on-street parking for US$8/year - far below the annualized cost of the space. And of course, this fee does not vary, whether it be a Hummer or a Yugo that you're trying to park (actually, [thankfully?] Cambridge probably has very few of either of those vehicle types...) cz Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car From: "Lee Schipper" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:39:56 -0400 To: "Sustran" , Thanks Lloyd. You know there was a fraud recently perpetrated as someone claimed (and columnist George Will cited) that a Prius used more energy over its lifetime than a hummer. The clown who made the comparison assumed that a hummer lasted 3 times longer (so he could write off the energy invested in the hummer over more miles) yet somehow used far less fuel/km...Its all in the assumptions and in where the boundaries are drawn! The manufacturing is a non trivial amount in any case. >>> >>> "Lloyd Wright" 7/11/2007 4:34 PM >>> Hi Lee, The numbers I quoted are from a UK study by Martin Michaelis, which was based on a cradle to grave approach (including the mining of aluminum and/or steel from Australia, Nigeria, etc.). Perhaps the Volvo / VW numbers are based on what happens inside their factory walls. But given the number of variables, I am sure it is highly dependent on the assumptions made. I would be keen on any studies / citations that you might have. In case you are interested, I am ataching a couple summary pages from the German study on solid waste from manufacturing and disposal. Whether manufacturing/disposal is 15-20% or 20-30% of total lifetime CO2 emissions, I am sure we would agree that it is a non-trivial amount. Thanks, Lloyd -----Original Message----- From: Lee Schipper [mailto:SCHIPPER@wri.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:43 PM To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport'; lwright@vivacities.org Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car I think I disagree with Lloyd's number-- a rule of thumb is about 10% of the lifetime energy of car goes for the car, 5% for the refined fuel and the rest to run the car. The calculation is obviously very sensitive to the fuel economy of the car (which is roughly inverse to the weight, and therefore to the amount of energy required to create all that weight) as well as to the lifetime of the car expressed in total km run. Perhaps the German EPA has different assumptions, but ones I poured over once with both Volvo and VW (in 1997) came out with numbers like those I quoted above. For the US, cars are 35% heavier than those in Europe, but they are run 35% more and use 35% more fuel/km, and they are not forced-retired as some countries do when cars get old and phunky. Hence the relationship Lloyd expressed -- a smaller share of lifetime emissions is bound up in the car in the US than in Europe -- is true At the end of the day it comes down to what the car is made of, and whether the masses of aluminium and steel are made mostly with coal (like in Australia, where the electricity for the Aluminium is coal-fired), natural gas, or some combination of those two plus hydro and nuclear (the Swedish case). IF steel or Al is imported that makes it even more complicated. My best guess is more like 15% for the US and 20% of a much smaller total number for Europe. -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From SCHIPPER at wri.org Thu Jul 12 20:38:47 2007 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:38:47 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <4695E67B.6050309@gmail.com> References: <394409.11911.qm@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4695E67B.6050309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4695DA870200003800010B82@HERMES.wri.org> Not clear free trnasport really gets those who otherwise would use cars to use free trnasport. Seattle was unable to really do this (in the down town area) but did a great job of providing visitors like me with free trips around town. I think the last line below says it all ? make sure the cost of using cars reflects all of societies costs and make sure organization and technical aspects of the collectiv system really provides a faster, safer, less costly alternative!. >>> Sunny 7/12/2007 4:29:47 AM >>> Yes, Chuwa has a point. Providing free public transport will be a good option and it could be financed thru parking charges and car taxes. Just to add to the examples mentioned Perth, Australia has this service called CAT and they are like 3 different circular routes and the service is free and I was told that it is funded by the parking charges. Bangkok on the other hand provides free shuttle service to some of its skytrain (BTS) stations. IMO, Bangkok could also provide free NMT (rickshaws) into the small streets (sois) if this could be done the use of motorbike taxi could be reduced to a great extent. Singapore is definitely an example and it is also worth noting that people seldom complain of the economic instruments as they have affordable public transport and other alternatives to a car. So, in the end it again comes to putting more financial burden on car USERS and also to some extent on car owners. Making the car travel hard and at the same time providing affordable, safe and convenient (sustainable) public transport would be the solution. kind regards Santhosh K. (Sunny) Kodukula Project Assistant GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP ESCAP UN Building Rajadamnern Nok Rd. Bangkok 10200, Thailand Tel: +66 (0) 2 - 288 1321 Fax: +66 (0) 2 - 280 6042 Mobile: +66 (0) 84?113-0181 e-mail: santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org Website: www.sutp.org Skype: sunny_nwho chuwa wrote: Thanks to everyone, this thread has been highly stimulating and educating for me. I hope not to distract the discussion but just chance upon this article (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares1/) which make a interesting connection back to the current discussion of banning cheap cars. What can be more compelling than "cheap car"? What if instead of banning "cheap car", there is someone offering free & good public buses in Mumbai? To go all the ay, perhaps it can be a profitable business model to offer this service for free in exchange of an opportunity to be in touch with the mass. Like JCDecaux sponsor street furniture, or Google offer excellent free search engine for the world, both to capture a critical "touch point' with the mass. In Singapore, there are several "free" bus routes linking large shopping malls and MRT stations. Mentioned in the article, high quality free bus service in Hasselt, Belgium has been expended 500% since it started in 1996 and now has a ridership close to 4 Millions. From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Jul 12 20:48:07 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:48:07 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <4695DA870200003800010B82@HERMES.wri.org> References: <394409.11911.qm@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4695E67B.6050309@gmail.com> <4695DA870200003800010B82@HERMES.wri.org> Message-ID: <469614F7.3000909@greenidea.info> Hi, This is the Wikipedia article on free public transport in Hasselt, in case not everyone is familiar... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport_in_Hasselt I have also been told that in Munich - not sure which operator - the revenue from tickets more or less pays for - dealing with collecting this money. So it makes jobs for accountants, etc, but thats all. - T Lee Schipper wrote: > Not clear free trnasport really gets those who otherwise would use cars > to use free trnasport. Seattle was unable to really do this (in the down > town area) but did a great job of providing visitors like me with free > trips around town. I think the last line below says it all ? make sure > the cost of using cars reflects all of societies costs and make sure > organization and technical aspects of the collectiv system really > provides a faster, safer, less costly alternative!. > > >>>> Sunny 7/12/2007 4:29:47 AM >>> >>>> > Yes, Chuwa has a point. Providing free public transport will be a good > option and it could be financed thru parking charges and car taxes. Just > to add to the examples mentioned Perth, Australia has this service > called CAT and they are like 3 different circular routes and the service > is free and I was told that it is funded by the parking charges. > > Bangkok on the other hand provides free shuttle service to some of its > skytrain (BTS) stations. IMO, Bangkok could also provide free NMT > (rickshaws) into the small streets (sois) if this could be done the use > of motorbike taxi could be reduced to a great extent. > > Singapore is definitely an example and it is also worth noting that > people seldom complain of the economic instruments as they have > affordable public transport and other alternatives to a car. > > So, in the end it again comes to putting more financial burden on car > USERS and also to some extent on car owners. Making the car travel hard > and at the same time providing affordable, safe and convenient > (sustainable) public transport would be the solution. > > kind regards > Santhosh K. (Sunny) Kodukula > Project Assistant > GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) > Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP ESCAP UN Building > Rajadamnern Nok Rd. Bangkok 10200, Thailand > Tel: +66 (0) 2 - 288 1321 > Fax: +66 (0) 2 - 280 6042 > Mobile: +66 (0) 84?113-0181 > e-mail: santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org > Website: www.sutp.org > Skype: sunny_nwho > > > > chuwa wrote: Thanks to everyone, this thread has been highly > stimulating and educating for me. > > I hope not to distract the discussion but just chance upon this article > (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares1/) which make a interesting > connection back to the current discussion of banning cheap cars. What > can be more compelling than "cheap car"? What if instead of banning > "cheap car", there is someone offering free & good public buses in > Mumbai? > To go all the ay, perhaps it can be a profitable business model to > offer this service for free in exchange of an opportunity to be in touch > with the mass. Like JCDecaux sponsor street furniture, or Google offer > excellent free search engine for the world, both to capture a critical > "touch point' with the mass. > In Singapore, there are several "free" bus routes linking large > shopping malls and MRT stations. Mentioned in the article, high quality > free bus service in Hasselt, Belgium has been expended 500% since it > started in 1996 and now has a ridership close to 4 Millions. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Thu Jul 12 23:54:33 2007 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlos F. Pardo) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:54:33 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Car ownership vs use and free public transport (was MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) In-Reply-To: <4695DA870200003800010B82@HERMES.wri.org> References: <394409.11911.qm@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4695E67B.6050309@gmail.com> <4695DA870200003800010B82@HERMES.wri.org> Message-ID: <469640A9.6060006@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070712/4ef9a7a8/attachment.html From msholler at itdp.org Thu Jul 12 23:59:32 2007 From: msholler at itdp.org (Matthew Sholler) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:59:32 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Sustainable Transport eUpdate July 2007 Message-ID: <200707121459.l6CExO5R013870@itdp.org> Sustainable Transport e-Update July 2007, No. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A quarterly on-line publication of the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP) support ITDP's mission today: https://app.etapestry.com/hosted/ITDP-InstituteForTransport/OnlineDonation.h tml ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FEATURES Special Report | Monorails: Back to the future The distinctiveness of monorail holds intrigue for city governments and discretionary transit users, but the technology suffers from significant operational and financial difficulties. (read full story) http://www.itdp.org/STe/ste24/monorails_1.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cycle-Ride Sundays Take Off in Mexico City Thousands enjoy car-free streets as Mayor Marcelo Ebrard moves Mexico's capital into a select group of cities taking bold action to improve the quality of public life. (read full story) http://www.itdp.org/STe/ste24/cycle-ride.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ New York Mayor Unveils Master Plan for Greener City Legislators remain divided over plan's congestion-pricing proposal as deadline for federal funding draws near. (read full story) http://www.itdp.org/STe/ste24/ny.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ India BRT Update Development of Ahmedabad,'s bus rapid transit system continues apace; national Ministry of Urban Development sponsors workshops on best practices. (read full story) http://www.itdp.org/STe/ste24/sa-dot.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ South Africa DOT Mobilizes Masses, Tailors Bikes to Local Needs Officials recognize the unique mobility needs of rural communities. (read full story) http://www.itdp.org/STe/ste23/sa.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NEW PUBLICATIONS and RESOURCES Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide http://www.itdp.org/STe/ste24/new_pub.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ITDP in the NEWS http://www.itdp.org/STe/ste24/news.html - Home health care workers on bikes (YouTube) - Flyovers no solution to traffic woes (The Statesman) - Make way for public transport (Hindustan Times) - Mexico City's hopes riding on two wheels (San Diego Union Tribune) - Govt okays bus rapid transit system for four cities (Business Standard) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ITDP Receives High Rating for Fiscal Management In April, ITDP earned the highest rating for efficient management of its finances by Charity Navigator, the largest evaluator of non-profit organizations in the U.S. Less than 25% of the charities evaluated by Charity Navigator receive its four-star rating, indicating that ITDP outperforms the majority of non-profits in the U.S. with respect to fiscal responsibility. Click on the following link to see ITDP's profile on Charity Navigator's web site: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.summary/orgid/8014.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ UPCOMING EVENTS Join ITDP for the CBC Industry Road Show in Ghana and Senegal, August 2007 http://www.itdp.org/STe/ste24/events.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JOIN US Help fight poverty, pollution and oil dependency around the world. Click on the link below to make a gift to ITDP today: https://app.etapestry.com/hosted/ITDP-InstituteForTransport/OnlineDonation.h tml Stay informed on important sustainable transport projects and policies by subscribing to ITDP's free electronic newsletter using the link below: https://app.etapestry.com/hosted/ITDP-InstituteForTransport/OnlineSignup.htm l Interested in volunteering your time at ITDP? E-mail msholler@itdp.org or call +1-212-629-8001. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To translate this page: http://babelfish.altavista.com/ or http://www.worldlingo.com/en/websites/url_translator.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Editor: Matthew Sholler Executive Director: Walter Hook ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sustainable Transport e-Update is published by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) From chuwasg at yahoo.com Fri Jul 13 00:26:43 2007 From: chuwasg at yahoo.com (chuwa) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:26:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (was MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) In-Reply-To: <469640A9.6060006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <18540.99341.qm@web36904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> If I may add, reading through this ealier thread, and reflecting on a speech by Janine Benyus in TEDTalk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n77BfxnVlyc) it hits me that the motorized private car may well be one of the most destructive invention of mankind. Car, in a small number is a wonderful toy. If used occasionally it's also fine, but the way it turn out now it's eating away way too much resources for too little value as return. The large number of cars in many countries is quickly becoming a liability rather than an asset to the owners and the society. Following the principle mentioned at the end of the video, it made me wonder if there is a design that achieve the purpose (transportation) and INCREASE the chances of future survival (Sustainability), just like most of the other live forms are doing in a natural way. I was recently in Penang, where public bus service is very poor, many people there have cars, my sister's family of four have 4 cars, not because they are very rich, but because the cars are very affordable and there is no real alternative choices (road become so hot and dangerous, and there is hardly any cyclist). And the usual story of traffic jam. I heard the Malaysia government want to promote their car industry and therefore provide financial incentive for people to own cars (zero down-payment, cheap subsidized gasoline). On the other hand, seeing the consequence, they are also afraid of the negative impact on environment and want people to e.g., car-pool, but all my friends say it's not practical. The design principle of private car is so dump, the opportunity to improve is proportionally huge. But cheaper car is not going to help the situation. Meanwhile, the developing countries are happily driving into the destructive direction. (http://tinyurl.com/2wmavp) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070712/aa634019/attachment.html From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 01:02:27 2007 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlos F. Pardo) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:02:27 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (was MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) In-Reply-To: <18540.99341.qm@web36904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <18540.99341.qm@web36904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46965093.8040604@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070712/2d50534d/attachment.html From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 01:02:50 2007 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlos F. Pardo) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:02:50 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (was MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) In-Reply-To: <18540.99341.qm@web36904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <18540.99341.qm@web36904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <469650AA.3020004@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070712/b1a1ce5d/attachment.html From ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 01:05:45 2007 From: ashok.sreenivas at gmail.com (Ashok Sreenivas) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:35:45 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (was MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) In-Reply-To: <469640A9.6060006@gmail.com> References: <394409.11911.qm@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4695E67B.6050309@gmail.com> <4695DA870200003800010B82@HERMES.wri.org> <469640A9.6060006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <46965159.4030001@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070712/a2335c9a/attachment.html From zvi at inro.ca Fri Jul 13 01:26:54 2007 From: zvi at inro.ca (Zvi Leve) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:26:54 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Tragedy of the commons! In-Reply-To: <18540.99341.qm@web36904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <18540.99341.qm@web36904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4696564E.3010908@inro.ca> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070712/0ce58ae1/attachment.html From SCHIPPER at wri.org Fri Jul 13 01:35:56 2007 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:35:56 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Tragedy of the commons! In-Reply-To: <4696564E.3010908@inro.ca> References: <18540.99341.qm@web36904.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4696564E.3010908@inro.ca> Message-ID: <4696202C0200003800010CDD@HERMES.wri.org> Zvi put it as well as anyone could. The question is whether we break through the cheap fuel barrier by accepting more expensive fuel, crash into it and hurt our economy, panic for a dirty fuel that appears to be cheap but measured by lung loss is expensive, or move away from oil before it becomes expensive...as is always said, the stone age did not end for lack of stones. Lee Schipper Director of Research EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport 10 G St. NE Washington DC, 20002 +1202 729 7735 FAX +1202 7297775 www.embarq.wri.org >>> Zvi Leve 7/12/2007 12:26:54 PM >>> This is all just a classic case of the 'tragedy of the commons': free and easy access to a finite resource (road space in this case) may help individuals and goods to move about far more easily than in the past, but when everyone does it there is no space left for anyone. What is good for one is disastrous when everyone does it (to say nothing of the environmental impacts of relying on carbon-based sources of energy)!As this debate has pointed out, there is no simple way of avoiding this tragedy. Public transport, even if it is free, will not be a viable alternative if it does not efficiently serve people's needs. Proper pricing of alternatives can better address equity issues, but this is a difficult tool to manage - most places opt for simpler methods (ban cheap cars, apply a fixed charge, etc) which are quite "blunt" instruments. As urban regions rapidly expand in all directions, it becomes more and more difficult to serve such large areas with mass-transit systems. Integrated development of transportation and land uses can certainly help, but this is beyond the capabilities of many governments. Land use and travel patterns have evolved rapidly in the 20th century, to a large extent as a result of changes in transportation technologies. We are probably approaching the end of the cheap-fuel era (the "end of suburbia"), so we will need to seriously rethink how we will be living and moving about in the future....Regards,ZVi From etts at indigo.ie Fri Jul 13 01:31:10 2007 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:31:10 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) References: <394409.11911.qm@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4695E67B.6050309@gmail.com> <4695DA870200003800010B82@HERMES.wri.org><469640A9.6060006@gmail.com> <46965159.4030001@gmail.com> Message-ID: <005801c7c4a2$0e6059d0$0401a8c0@finn> In my opinion, cost of public transport is not a key issue for current car owners and for those who seriously aspire to become car owners. These people have the affordability to pay reasonable fares. Giving it away for free will not change their desire to own or use cars. Instead, it will place a heavy burden on the funding agencies, and put public transport entirely at the mercy of political view and expedience of whatever party or minister is in power. (If you want free transport to help the poor, that's a different argument, I'd still argue it's bad policy. If you want to offer a serious alternative to the car, you must face up what owners and wannabe-owners associate with the car : - Image and self-image - All destinations available - Always on, 24/7 - Quality and comfort - Personal space - Reliability and speed - Ownership and possession Public transport does not have to win on every one of these factors, but if it loses badly across the board, it has zero credibility with this target group. And if you then offer a loser service for free, it just proves to them that it wasn't worth paying for in the first place. Until public transport can meet the mobility and self-respect aspirations of people who travel, it is reduced to "the thing you have to use when you could not get what you want". Banning car ownership, sale or use will just make very many people very frustrated. In this, politicians are correct to guage the public mood and avoid unrest and backlash. That doesn't excuse the same politicians for poor transport policy in the first place. If you take the 7 factors above (or any other list you wish to make), how many public transport systems that you know perform well across the board for an entire metropolitan area? Even if they do, are they winning mode share back from cars? What choices are teenagers and 20-30 year olds making? I don't intend to be defeatist here, just realistic. If we have the tools to do the job, fine, maybe we need to use them a bit smarter. If not, then we'd better channel our energies into designing some new ones and showing that they work at city-scale. With best wishes, Brendan. _____________________________________________________________________________________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: Ashok Sreenivas To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:05 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) IMO, a free (and of course reliable, comfortable) public transport (PT) may not shift *existing* car / motorcycle users to public transport, but it will have a significant impact on *potential* car / motorcycle users. A common phenomenon in "developing" countries like ours with easy access to 2-wheelers is the hierarchy of a PT user wanting to buy a 2-wheeler (and similarly 2-wheeler to 4-wheeler) as soon as he can afford it because the PT systems are so inconvenient and uncomfortable. I think this steady leaching of PT users as the economy grows can be arrested by not only improving PT but making it free (or very very cheap) so that the "entry barrier" to motorized transport is high. On 12/07/2007 8:24 PM, Carlos F. Pardo wrote: I'm not sure... People who use cars and pay gasoline and parking will not really be shifting to public transport if it's free (instead of having a low fare). Free public transport can be an instrument to improve access for the entire population, especially those who cannot afford it and go by bicycle or walking long distances. I think what would really generate mode shifts to public transport is that it is comfortable and reliable, and that it has as much access around the city as possible. We once used the word "fashionable" to describe this type of transport, but some people thought it was not an appropriate term. I think we all agree that car ownership and use must be charged at real costs, including all externalities, social and environmental (the 1 lakh car would be much more expensive if these costs were included). Push (from the car) and pull (to sustainable transport), and start planning from the demand side rather than supply (infrastructure). Best regards, Carlos Lee Schipper wrote: Not clear free trnasport really gets those who otherwise would use cars to use free trnasport. Seattle was unable to really do this (in the down town area) but did a great job of providing visitors like me with free trips around town. I think the last line below says it all ? make sure the cost of using cars reflects all of societies costs and make sure organization and technical aspects of the collectiv system really provides a faster, safer, less costly alternative!. Sunny 7/12/2007 4:29:47 AM >>> Yes, Chuwa has a point. Providing free public transport will be a good option and it could be financed thru parking charges and car taxes. Just to add to the examples mentioned Perth, Australia has this service called CAT and they are like 3 different circular routes and the service is free and I was told that it is funded by the parking charges. Bangkok on the other hand provides free shuttle service to some of its skytrain (BTS) stations. IMO, Bangkok could also provide free NMT (rickshaws) into the small streets (sois) if this could be done the use of motorbike taxi could be reduced to a great extent. Singapore is definitely an example and it is also worth noting that people seldom complain of the economic instruments as they have affordable public transport and other alternatives to a car. So, in the end it again comes to putting more financial burden on car USERS and also to some extent on car owners. Making the car travel hard and at the same time providing affordable, safe and convenient (sustainable) public transport would be the solution. kind regards Santhosh K. (Sunny) Kodukula Project Assistant GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP ESCAP UN Building Rajadamnern Nok Rd. Bangkok 10200, Thailand Tel: +66 (0) 2 - 288 1321 Fax: +66 (0) 2 - 280 6042 Mobile: +66 (0) 84?113-0181 e-mail: santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org Website: www.sutp.org Skype: sunny_nwho chuwa wrote: Thanks to everyone, this thread has been highly stimulating and educating for me. I hope not to distract the discussion but just chance upon this article (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares1/) which make a interesting connection back to the current discussion of banning cheap cars. What can be more compelling than "cheap car"? What if instead of banning "cheap car", there is someone offering free & good public buses in Mumbai? To go all the ay, perhaps it can be a profitable business model to offer this service for free in exchange of an opportunity to be in touch with the mass. Like JCDecaux sponsor street furniture, or Google offer excellent free search engine for the world, both to capture a critical "touch point' with the mass. In Singapore, there are several "free" bus routes linking large shopping malls and MRT stations. Mentioned in the article, high quality free bus service in Hasselt, Belgium has been expended 500% since it started in 1996 and now has a ridership close to 4 Millions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070712/34f5f407/attachment.html From anjali.mahendra at gmail.com Fri Jul 13 01:57:03 2007 From: anjali.mahendra at gmail.com (Anjali Mahendra) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:57:03 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <20070712030140.264452E010@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20070712030140.264452E010@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <004301c7c4a5$acc925e0$9600a8c0@AnjaliBala> This is an interesting discussion. About the ban on the Tata car itself, I agree that it is unfair and senseless for a particular vehicle to be banned. One hopes that a PIL of this nature can lead to some sort of policy--pricing or a vehicle restriction--for all cars. But car OWNERSHIP is directly correlated with USE so not considering them together in a comprehensive policy doesn't work, I would argue, especially in a place like Mumbai. For instance, people who don't own cars in Singapore say that is just too expensive to do so--you end up paying 4 times the cost of the car by the time you're done with taxes and registration. The road pricing policy, with expensive parking, and the ownership tax, all act as a powerful disincentive TOGETHER. On the issue of bans vs. pricing, the car owning population in Mumbai is about 9-12% and a recent paper (Takeuchi et al., 2007) says that only 3% of households use their own car to commute to work. This is likely to be the richest group of people--those who will buy a second car to get around any bans, or an expensive car to get around bans on cheap cars, or to whom a congestion charge will not matter either. This is why I think a ban on vehicle circulation would be important if congestion is the problem to solve. Also, a high % of cars on the roads in congested areas of Mumbai are company cars (paid for by employers); in many cases parking spaces are paid for by employers too. Demand for cars is far more skewed by income in Indian cities than in cities of the West. Does that mean a more important role for regulatory policies than market-based policies? It is probably a combination of both that's needed. Once we start taking two-wheelers into account, and taxis--both large contributors to congestion in Mumbai, it gets complicated enough that a ban might just be more feasible to implement. Regards, Anjali ------------------------------------------------------------------ [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Posted by: "Walter Hook" whook@itdp.org Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:35 am (PST) Carlos, You are way off. Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems, and a lot of social benefits. The social costs are related to car USE and overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on location. In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution, and in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in other locations it will not. It is therefore more socially optimal to regulate car USE than to regulate its ownership. If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could certainly be banned on those grounds. But a cheap car generates no more congestion than an expensive car. Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from consumers to the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for public investments. It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion benefits will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the aggregate social benefits of a congestion charge. In poor areas, where there is likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to be priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be the worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and again there will be no congestion relief. If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a far less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge. If the purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no good either. With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person can prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the trip is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge is). This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative license plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second car, or a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an expensive car. Best Walter From SCHIPPER at wri.org Fri Jul 13 02:03:18 2007 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:03:18 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <004301c7c4a5$acc925e0$9600a8c0@AnjaliBala> References: <20070712030140.264452E010@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> <004301c7c4a5$acc925e0$9600a8c0@AnjaliBala> Message-ID: <469626960200003800010CFC@HERMES.wri.org> An important addendum to Anjali's interesting post. The Danes have very high (> 200% net) taxes on new car purchases. This means fewer cars per capita than in neighboring countries, but the cars are used so much more, per car, that per capita car USE in denmark is what it is in Sweden or Germany! so car ownership is somewhat but not directly correlated with use. This has implications for places with high acquisition or ownership costs (like yearly reg fees) but low fuel prices and low or no other direct utilization costs...unless one imposes congestion pricing like Singapore, one has fewer cars used more intensively! Lee Schipper Director of Research EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport 10 G St. NE Washington DC, 20002 +1202 729 7735 FAX +1202 7297775 www.embarq.wri.org >>> "Anjali Mahendra" 7/12/2007 12:57:03 PM >>> This is an interesting discussion. About the ban on the Tata car itself, I agree that it is unfair and senseless for a particular vehicle to be banned. One hopes that a PIL of this nature can lead to some sort of policy--pricing or a vehicle restriction--for all cars. But car OWNERSHIP is directly correlated with USE so not considering them together in a comprehensive policy doesn't work, I would argue, especially in a place like Mumbai. For instance, people who don't own cars in Singapore say that is just too expensive to do so--you end up paying 4 times the cost of the car by the time you're done with taxes and registration. The road pricing policy, with expensive parking, and the ownership tax, all act as a powerful disincentive TOGETHER. On the issue of bans vs. pricing, the car owning population in Mumbai is about 9-12% and a recent paper (Takeuchi et al., 2007) says that only 3% of households use their own car to commute to work. This is likely to be the richest group of people--those who will buy a second car to get around any bans, or an expensive car to get around bans on cheap cars, or to whom a congestion charge will not matter either. This is why I think a ban on vehicle circulation would be important if congestion is the problem to solve. Also, a high % of cars on the roads in congested areas of Mumbai are company cars (paid for by employers); in many cases parking spaces are paid for by employers too. Demand for cars is far more skewed by income in Indian cities than in cities of the West. Does that mean a more important role for regulatory policies than market-based policies? It is probably a combination of both that's needed. Once we start taking two-wheelers into account, and taxis--both large contributors to congestion in Mumbai, it gets complicated enough that a ban might just be more feasible to implement. Regards, Anjali ------------------------------------------------------------------ [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Posted by: "Walter Hook" whook@itdp.org Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:35 am (PST) Carlos, You are way off. Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems, and a lot of social benefits. The social costs are related to car USE and overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on location. In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution, and in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in other locations it will not. It is therefore more socially optimal to regulate car USE than to regulate its ownership. If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could certainly be banned on those grounds. But a cheap car generates no more congestion than an expensive car. Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from consumers to the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for public investments. It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion benefits will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the aggregate social benefits of a congestion charge. In poor areas, where there is likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to be priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be the worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and again there will be no congestion relief. If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a far less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge. If the purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no good either. With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person can prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the trip is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge is). This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative license plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second car, or a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an expensive car. Best Walter -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From whook at itdp.org Fri Jul 13 02:19:21 2007 From: whook at itdp.org (Walter Hook) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:19:21 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <004301c7c4a5$acc925e0$9600a8c0@AnjaliBala> Message-ID: <000801c7c4a8$ccce2400$3601a8c0@DFJLYL81> I disagree that there is a direct correlation, though there is certainly some sort of relationship. It is not a simple relationship or the same in all places. Shanghai has extremely low motor vehicle ownership rates due to lack of residential parking locations, but it has one of the largest taxi fleets in the world, and the streets are completely jammed with taxis all day. A city could have extremely high private vehicle trips with zero ownership if everybody uses taxis. In this case, ownership restrictions do nothing. We are still wondering what the impact of car sharing and Zip car is going to be on car USE. For people like me who don't own a car, my car use has gone up thanks to Zip car. Maybe someone else decided not to buy a car because of car sharing and hence uses it less. But my guess is car use is as likely to increase as decrease as a result of car sharing. -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Anjali Mahendra Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:57 PM To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car This is an interesting discussion. About the ban on the Tata car itself, I agree that it is unfair and senseless for a particular vehicle to be banned. One hopes that a PIL of this nature can lead to some sort of policy--pricing or a vehicle restriction--for all cars. But car OWNERSHIP is directly correlated with USE so not considering them together in a comprehensive policy doesn't work, I would argue, especially in a place like Mumbai. For instance, people who don't own cars in Singapore say that is just too expensive to do so--you end up paying 4 times the cost of the car by the time you're done with taxes and registration. The road pricing policy, with expensive parking, and the ownership tax, all act as a powerful disincentive TOGETHER. On the issue of bans vs. pricing, the car owning population in Mumbai is about 9-12% and a recent paper (Takeuchi et al., 2007) says that only 3% of households use their own car to commute to work. This is likely to be the richest group of people--those who will buy a second car to get around any bans, or an expensive car to get around bans on cheap cars, or to whom a congestion charge will not matter either. This is why I think a ban on vehicle circulation would be important if congestion is the problem to solve. Also, a high % of cars on the roads in congested areas of Mumbai are company cars (paid for by employers); in many cases parking spaces are paid for by employers too. Demand for cars is far more skewed by income in Indian cities than in cities of the West. Does that mean a more important role for regulatory policies than market-based policies? It is probably a combination of both that's needed. Once we start taking two-wheelers into account, and taxis--both large contributors to congestion in Mumbai, it gets complicated enough that a ban might just be more feasible to implement. Regards, Anjali ------------------------------------------------------------------ [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Posted by: "Walter Hook" whook@itdp.org Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:35 am (PST) Carlos, You are way off. Car OWNERSHIP causes relatively few social problems, and a lot of social benefits. The social costs are related to car USE and overuse, and these costs are not uniform but vary greatly depending on location. In some locations, more people are exposed to air pollution, and in some locations the use of the car will create congestion whereas in other locations it will not. It is therefore more socially optimal to regulate car USE than to regulate its ownership. If the cheap car generates more pollution than other cars, it could certainly be banned on those grounds. But a cheap car generates no more congestion than an expensive car. Otherwise, banning cheap cars just creates a cash transfer from consumers to the producers of more expensive cars, and yields no public revenue for public investments. It may have some marginal congestion benefits, but these congestion benefits will be poorly targeted and will be therefore far lower than the aggregate social benefits of a congestion charge. In poor areas, where there is likely to be the least congestion, people will be the most likely to be priced out of the auto market, facing higher costs and bringing little congestion relief, while in wealthy areas, where there is likely to be the worst congestion, people will simply switch to more expensive cars and again there will be no congestion relief. If the purpose of the policy is congestion relief, it is likely to be a far less effective policy than a better targeted congestion charge. If the purpose is to generate revenues for public investments, it does no good either. With a congestion charge, a rich person or a moderate income person can prioritize their trips into the city center and only make them when the trip is really worth the social cost of 8 pounds (or whatever the charge is). This is a much more flexible and fair policy than an alternative license plate scheme which the rich can always get around by buying a second car, or a ban on cheap cars, which the rich can always get around by buying an expensive car. Best Walter -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From Armin.Wagner at gtz.de Fri Jul 13 02:09:23 2007 From: Armin.Wagner at gtz.de (Wagner Armin GTZ 4413) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:09:23 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Tragedy of the commons! In-Reply-To: <4696202C0200003800010CDD@HERMES.wri.org> References: <18540.99341.qm@web36904.mail.mud.yahoo.com><4696564E.3010908@inro.ca> <4696202C0200003800010CDD@HERMES.wri.org> Message-ID: <330B6D737D1475458AC93F02A6035D75010DBA05@CLUEXVS1.gtz.de> As with blocking the market entry of a cheap car, increasing fuel taxes will be met by a substantial public outcry/debate (that we should be prepared for): Please note in this context the article "Prime Numbers - Pain at the Pump" in the Foreign Policy magazine: "Drivers grumble about high gasoline prices all over the world. But with oil prices at record highs, many countries are saying goodbye to gas subsidies, making a trip to the filling station more expensive than ever." : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3862&page=0 The analysis is based on our report "International Fuel Prices 2007": www.gtz.de/fuelprices Best regards, Armin -----Original Message----- From: sustran-discuss-bounces+armin.wagner=gtz.de@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+armin.wagner=gtz.de@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Lee Schipper Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 6:36 PM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Tragedy of the commons! Zvi put it as well as anyone could. The question is whether we break through the cheap fuel barrier by accepting more expensive fuel, crash into it and hurt our economy, panic for a dirty fuel that appears to be cheap but measured by lung loss is expensive, or move away from oil before it becomes expensive...as is always said, the stone age did not end for lack of stones. Lee Schipper Director of Research EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport 10 G St. NE Washington DC, 20002 +1202 729 7735 FAX +1202 7297775 www.embarq.wri.org >>> Zvi Leve 7/12/2007 12:26:54 PM >>> This is all just a classic case of the 'tragedy of the commons': free and easy access to a finite resource (road space in this case) may help individuals and goods to move about far more easily than in the past, but when everyone does it there is no space left for anyone. What is good for one is disastrous when everyone does it (to say nothing of the environmental impacts of relying on carbon-based sources of energy)!As this debate has pointed out, there is no simple way of avoiding this tragedy. Public transport, even if it is free, will not be a viable alternative if it does not efficiently serve people's needs. Proper pricing of alternatives can better address equity issues, but this is a difficult tool to manage - most places opt for simpler methods (ban cheap cars, apply a fixed charge, etc) which are quite "blunt" instruments. As urban regions rapidly expand in all directions, it becomes more and more difficult to serve such large areas with mass-transit systems. Integr ated development of transportation and land uses can certainly help, but this is beyond the capabilities of many governments. Land use and travel patterns have evolved rapidly in the 20th century, to a large extent as a result of changes in transportation technologies. We are probably approaching the end of the cheap-fuel era (the "end of suburbia"), so we will need to seriously rethink how we will be living and moving about in the future....Regards,ZVi -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH; Sitz der Gesellschaft/Registered Office Eschborn/Taunus, Germany; Registergericht/Registered at Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Eintragungs-Nr./Registration no. HRB 12394; Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates/Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Erich Stather, State Secretary; Geschaeftsfuehrer/Managing Directors: Dr. Bernd Eisenblaetter, Wolfgang Schmitt From ericbruun at earthlink.net Fri Jul 13 04:26:13 2007 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:26:13 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) Message-ID: <19192729.1184268374039.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070712/98ea246c/attachment.html From alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk Fri Jul 13 04:32:11 2007 From: alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk (Alan Howes) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:32:11 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport(wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) References: <394409.11911.qm@web36912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4695E67B.6050309@gmail.com> <4695DA870200003800010B82@HERMES.wri.org><469640A9.6060006@gmail.com><46965159.4030001@gmail.com> <005801c7c4a2$0e6059d0$0401a8c0@finn> Message-ID: <00ea01c7c4bb$5be6a880$7924d255@userukifbwjukr> This is all very fascinating, if time consuming to read. I agree that free buses are not the answer. Even compared with a 1 lakh car or a 2-wheeler, bus and rail fares in Mumbai are very low. And while Brendan's analysis is commendable, I think his specification for attractive PT is rather over-egged for Mumbai. Crikey, at many times and places people just can't get on the buses! What Mumbai desperately needs (apart fom the Metro and rail improvements) is more buses, right now, and priorities to get them through traffic. And less messing around worrying about how to get the BusCo to make ends meet. (I can say that now I have changed jobs!) So tell me Debi, or Sujit, or Anjali - how are these plans for BRT in Mumbai by the end of 2007 progressing? Regards, and very best wishes trying to bring sanity to transport planning in Mumbai, Alan -- Alan Howes, Perthshire, Scotland ----- Original Message ----- From: Brendan Finn To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:31 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport(wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) In my opinion, cost of public transport is not a key issue for current car owners and for those who seriously aspire to become car owners. These people have the affordability to pay reasonable fares. Giving it away for free will not change their desire to own or use cars. Instead, it will place a heavy burden on the funding agencies, and put public transport entirely at the mercy of political view and expedience of whatever party or minister is in power. (If you want free transport to help the poor, that's a different argument, I'd still argue it's bad policy. If you want to offer a serious alternative to the car, you must face up what owners and wannabe-owners associate with the car : - Image and self-image - All destinations available - Always on, 24/7 - Quality and comfort - Personal space - Reliability and speed - Ownership and possession Public transport does not have to win on every one of these factors, but if it loses badly across the board, it has zero credibility with this target group. And if you then offer a loser service for free, it just proves to them that it wasn't worth paying for in the first place. Until public transport can meet the mobility and self-respect aspirations of people who travel, it is reduced to "the thing you have to use when you could not get what you want". Banning car ownership, sale or use will just make very many people very frustrated. In this, politicians are correct to guage the public mood and avoid unrest and backlash. That doesn't excuse the same politicians for poor transport policy in the first place. If you take the 7 factors above (or any other list you wish to make), how many public transport systems that you know perform well across the board for an entire metropolitan area? Even if they do, are they winning mode share back from cars? What choices are teenagers and 20-30 year olds making? I don't intend to be defeatist here, just realistic. If we have the tools to do the job, fine, maybe we need to use them a bit smarter. If not, then we'd better channel our energies into designing some new ones and showing that they work at city-scale. With best wishes, Brendan. _____________________________________________________________________________________ From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: Ashok Sreenivas To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:05 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) IMO, a free (and of course reliable, comfortable) public transport (PT) may not shift *existing* car / motorcycle users to public transport, but it will have a significant impact on *potential* car / motorcycle users. A common phenomenon in "developing" countries like ours with easy access to 2-wheelers is the hierarchy of a PT user wanting to buy a 2-wheeler (and similarly 2-wheeler to 4-wheeler) as soon as he can afford it because the PT systems are so inconvenient and uncomfortable. I think this steady leaching of PT users as the economy grows can be arrested by not only improving PT but making it free (or very very cheap) so that the "entry barrier" to motorized transport is high. On 12/07/2007 8:24 PM, Carlos F. Pardo wrote: I'm not sure... People who use cars and pay gasoline and parking will not really be shifting to public transport if it's free (instead of having a low fare). Free public transport can be an instrument to improve access for the entire population, especially those who cannot afford it and go by bicycle or walking long distances. I think what would really generate mode shifts to public transport is that it is comfortable and reliable, and that it has as much access around the city as possible. We once used the word "fashionable" to describe this type of transport, but some people thought it was not an appropriate term. I think we all agree that car ownership and use must be charged at real costs, including all externalities, social and environmental (the 1 lakh car would be much more expensive if these costs were included). Push (from the car) and pull (to sustainable transport), and start planning from the demand side rather than supply (infrastructure). Best regards, Carlos Lee Schipper wrote: Not clear free trnasport really gets those who otherwise would use cars to use free trnasport. Seattle was unable to really do this (in the down town area) but did a great job of providing visitors like me with free trips around town. I think the last line below says it all ? make sure the cost of using cars reflects all of societies costs and make sure organization and technical aspects of the collectiv system really provides a faster, safer, less costly alternative!. Sunny 7/12/2007 4:29:47 AM >>> Yes, Chuwa has a point. Providing free public transport will be a good option and it could be financed thru parking charges and car taxes. Just to add to the examples mentioned Perth, Australia has this service called CAT and they are like 3 different circular routes and the service is free and I was told that it is funded by the parking charges. Bangkok on the other hand provides free shuttle service to some of its skytrain (BTS) stations. IMO, Bangkok could also provide free NMT (rickshaws) into the small streets (sois) if this could be done the use of motorbike taxi could be reduced to a great extent. Singapore is definitely an example and it is also worth noting that people seldom complain of the economic instruments as they have affordable public transport and other alternatives to a car. So, in the end it again comes to putting more financial burden on car USERS and also to some extent on car owners. Making the car travel hard and at the same time providing affordable, safe and convenient (sustainable) public transport would be the solution. kind regards Santhosh K. (Sunny) Kodukula Project Assistant GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP ESCAP UN Building Rajadamnern Nok Rd. Bangkok 10200, Thailand Tel: +66 (0) 2 - 288 1321 Fax: +66 (0) 2 - 280 6042 Mobile: +66 (0) 84?113-0181 e-mail: santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org Website: www.sutp.org Skype: sunny_nwho chuwa wrote: Thanks to everyone, this thread has been highly stimulating and educating for me. I hope not to distract the discussion but just chance upon this article (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares1/) which make a interesting connection back to the current discussion of banning cheap cars. What can be more compelling than "cheap car"? What if instead of banning "cheap car", there is someone offering free & good public buses in Mumbai? To go all the ay, perhaps it can be a profitable business model to offer this service for free in exchange of an opportunity to be in touch with the mass. Like JCDecaux sponsor street furniture, or Google offer excellent free search engine for the world, both to capture a critical "touch point' with the mass. In Singapore, there are several "free" bus routes linking large shopping malls and MRT stations. Mentioned in the article, high quality free bus service in Hasselt, Belgium has been expended 500% since it started in 1996 and now has a ridership close to 4 Millions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070712/b79ffb12/attachment.html From etts at indigo.ie Fri Jul 13 06:51:35 2007 From: etts at indigo.ie (Brendan Finn) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:51:35 +0100 Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport References: <19192729.1184268374039.JavaMail.root@elwamui-muscovy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <001801c7c4ce$d18aa560$0401a8c0@finn> Eric, I don't disagree with the downsides, but I think you are missing the point. Car owners and wannabees don't want to know about downsides, they've already made up their minds. The auto industry has been very successful at selling an airbrushed dream. The current generation of car adverts avoid reality, and often show very little of the car itself. They present an image, an emotion, an illusion. It's the dream that people want, whether in Mumbai, Rio or Dubai. If you don't face up to that, your messages for public transport will fall on very deaf ears. Your targets don't want to hear what you have to say, they have ten-foot filters over their ears and eyes. Think Tommy. As Jack Nicholson put it, they can't handle the truth. And maybe we can't either. I think there are just two choices. 1) Cosh them over the head and coerce them into the mobility and urban solution we (in our infinite wisdom) think is best. They won't come willingly. 2) Engage with them on their terms, see public transport through their eyes, and do what it takes to make PT what you would choose to use. Is that even possible? What are the building blocks, and how do we combine them? How do we make PT part of a lifestyle for 21st Century? Can you imagine the hero on the bus, a mobile Starbucks, docking your PC on the way to work or play? I've been in the PT business for a quarter century and, quite frankly, much of the time I feel I'm on the side of the angels and in the clothes of a tramp. We need a makeover on our side. Yours in friendship, Brendan. _____________________________________________________________________________________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Bruun To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:26 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free publictransport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) Brendon You are listing the positive sides of having access to a car. The negative sides can also encourage transit use, even when the transit is mediocre. Here is the same list with a negative spin. - Image and self-image Embarassment because one can only afford a junker - All destinations available Huge tolls to some places - Always on, 24/7 Can't drive home after drinking - Quality and comfort Horrible heat, noise, etc. - Personal space Lonely - Reliability and speed Traffic jams and accidents - Ownership and possession Payments and licensiing hassles Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- From: Brendan Finn Sent: Jul 12, 2007 12:31 PM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) ? In my opinion, cost of public transport is not a key issue for current car owners and for those who seriously aspire to become car owners. These people have the affordability to pay reasonable fares. Giving it away for free will not change their desire to own or use cars. Instead, it will place a heavy burden on the funding agencies, and put public transport entirely at the mercy of political view and expedience of whatever party or minister is in power. (If you want free transport to help the poor, that's a different argument, I'd still argue it's bad policy. If you want to offer a serious alternative to the car, you must face up what owners and wannabe-owners associate with the car : - Image and self-image - All destinations available - Always on, 24/7 - Quality and comfort - Personal space - Reliability and speed - Ownership and possession Public transport does not have to win on every one of these factors, but if it loses badly across the board, it has zero credibility with this target group. And if you then offer a loser service for free, it just proves to them that it wasn't worth paying for in the first place. Until public transport can meet the mobility and self-respect aspirations of people who travel, it is reduced to "the thing you have to use when you could not get what you want". Banning car ownership, sale or use will just make very many people very frustrated. In this, politicians are correct to guage the public mood and avoid unrest and backlash. That doesn't excuse the same politicians for poor transport policy in the first place. If you take the 7 factors above (or any other list you wish to make), how many public transport systems that you know perform well across the board for an entire metropolitan area? Even if they do, are they winning mode share back from cars? What choices are teenagers and 20-30 year olds making? I don't intend to be defeatist here, just realistic. If we have the tools to do the job, fine, maybe we need to use them a bit smarter. If not, then we'd better channel our energies into designing some new ones and showing that they work at city-scale. With best wishes, Brendan. _____________________________________________________________________________________ From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: Ashok Sreenivas To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:05 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) IMO, a free (and of course reliable, comfortable) public transport (PT) may not shift *existing* car / motorcycle users to public transport, but it will have a significant impact on *potential* car / motorcycle users. A common phenomenon in "developing" countries like ours with easy access to 2-wheelers is the hierarchy of a PT user wanting to buy a 2-wheeler (and similarly 2-wheeler to 4-wheeler) as soon as he can afford it because the PT systems are so inconvenient and uncomfortable. I think this steady leaching of PT users as the economy grows can be arrested by not only improving PT but making it free (or very very cheap) so that the "entry barrier" to motorized transport is high. On 12/07/2007 8:24 PM, Carlos F. Pardo wrote: I'm not sure... People who use cars and pay gasoline and parking will not really be shifting to public transport if it's free (instead of having a low fare). Free public transport can be an instrument to improve access for the entire population, especially those who cannot afford it and go by bicycle or walking long distances. I think what would really generate mode shifts to public transport is that it is comfortable and reliable, and that it has as much access around the city as possible. We once used the word "fashionable" to describe this type of transport, but some people thought it was not an appropriate term. I think we all agree that car ownership and use must be charged at real costs, including all externalities, social and environmental (the 1 lakh car would be much more expensive if these costs were included). Push (from the car) and pull (to sustainable transport), and start planning from the demand side rather than supply (infrastructure). Best regards, Carlos Lee Schipper wrote: Not clear free trnasport really gets those who otherwise would use cars to use free trnasport. Seattle was unable to really do this (in the down town area) but did a great job of providing visitors like me with free trips around town. I think the last line below says it all ? make sure the cost of using cars reflects all of societies costs and make sure organization and technical aspects of the collectiv system really provides a faster, safer, less costly alternative!. Sunny 7/12/2007 4:29:47 AM >>> Yes, Chuwa has a point. Providing free public transport will be a good option and it could be financed thru parking charges and car taxes. Just to add to the examples mentioned Perth, Australia has this service called CAT and they are like 3 different circular routes and the service is free and I was told that it is funded by the parking charges. Bangkok on the other hand provides free shuttle service to some of its skytrain (BTS) stations. IMO, Bangkok could also provide free NMT (rickshaws) into the small streets (sois) if this could be done the use of motorbike taxi could be reduced to a great extent. Singapore is definitely an example and it is also worth noting that people seldom complain of the economic instruments as they have affordable public transport and other alternatives to a car. So, in the end it again comes to putting more financial burden on car USERS and also to some extent on car owners. Making the car travel hard and at the same time providing affordable, safe and convenient (sustainable) public transport would be the solution. kind regards Santhosh K. (Sunny) Kodukula Project Assistant GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP ESCAP UN Building Rajadamnern Nok Rd. Bangkok 10200, Thailand Tel: +66 (0) 2 - 288 1321 Fax: +66 (0) 2 - 280 6042 Mobile: +66 (0) 84?113-0181 e-mail: santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org Website: www.sutp.org Skype: sunny_nwho chuwa wrote: Thanks to everyone, this thread has been highly stimulating and educating for me. I hope not to distract the discussion but just chance upon this article (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares1/) which make a interesting connection back to the current discussion of banning cheap cars. What can be more compelling than "cheap car"? What if instead of banning "cheap car", there is someone offering free & good public buses in Mumbai? To go all the ay, perhaps it can be a profitable business model to offer this service for free in exchange of an opportunity to be in touch with the mass. Like JCDecaux sponsor street furniture, or Google offer excellent free search engine for the world, both to capture a critical "touch point' with the mass. In Singapore, there are several "free" bus routes linking large shopping malls and MRT stations. Mentioned in the article, high quality free bus service in Hasselt, Belgium has been expended 500% since it started in 1996 and now has a ridership close to 4 Millions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070712/53a23894/attachment.html From et3 at et3.com Wed Jul 11 01:05:14 2007 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:05:14 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <4cfd20aa0707092251w26c02efdsc9b0c9d4ee5dd7e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <037f01c7c30c$1e485830$6b43fea9@P90CAD> You guys must realize that you are fighting a losing battle and change your tactics! The motorcycle, car, and jet have already beaten the bike, bus, and train in transportation value (just as the bike, train beat the value of walking, horses, and ox carts for most travel 100 years ago in the US). The ONLY way to beat the car is by implementing a transportation mode that offers a quantum improvement in VALUE for most people. The relative value of a transportation mode is the total benefits divided by the total costs. Value is pest compared on a relative monetary amount per passenger unit of distance traveled (e.g. cents per passenger mile). Trains were optimized for hauling massive non-perishable loads at slow speed between two fixed points (like from a mine to a port). Even though trains cannot be effectively loaded with people (people don?t tolerate being stacked up to the top of the train car as well as a load of coal); trains still offered better value for passenger travel between cities than horse powered coach did, and soon captured more than 90% of passenger and cargo travel between major cities. Now trains accommodate less than 1% of the passenger travel between American cities. In developed countries, cars and jets have displaced passenger trains to just a few niche markets where they continue to provide value advantage (such as subways in ultra dense cities); or in markets where most of the extreme infrastructure cost of passenger trains are subsidized by a corrupt government/rail industry "partnership" at the expense of tax payers most of whom cannot benefit. Daryl Oster (c) 2007? 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:?POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > -----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 > Sujit Patwardhan > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 1:51 AM > To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > > 10 July 2007 > > > > I don't think our democratic constitution will permit such a ban, which > can be prevented on grounds of unjustified discrimination (unless lack of > safety is cited as the reason and can be proved to be true) but the idea > for automobile restriction will hopefully become possible to sell at least > in some form, to our policy makers who are selectively ignorant to the > consequences of auto domination. > > It may become possible to force them to admit that auto-mania needs to be > countered in the interest of the majority of population which is the > sufferer. And as Walter rightly points out there are other options - we > could start by charging heavy levies on fuel guzzlers and high polluting > vehicles, as well as tightening parking controls (something totally > contradictory to present policy of searching for parking spaces even under > ones bed!! > :-) > -- > Sujit Patwardhan > Parisar/PTTF > Pune, India > > > > > > > > > On 7/10/07, Walter Hook wrote: > > The spirit is good, but the means seems very wrong headed to me. > What is the legal precedent? That governments should be allowed to ban > certain categories of vehicles from city streets if the price of the > vehicle is too low? This is outrageous. A 1 lak car consumes no more > road space than a car costing much more. > > > > I would encourage the MMRDA to look into traffic cells, congestion > charging and market-oriented parking charges as more rational policies for > allocating scarce public road space in Mumbai. > > > > Walter > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf > Of Alan Howes > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:25 PM > To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh > car > > > > But leaving aside the questions of political acceptability, how > could Chandrashekhar ban the 1 lakh car in Greater Mumbai when the rest of > India accepts it? > > > > But I agree with his analysis. > > > > Alan > > > > -- > Alan Howes, Perthshire, Scotland > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Anupam Gupta, CLSA > > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 7:37 AM > > Subject: [sustran] MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 > lakh car > > > > MMRDA is the regional planning authority for Mumbai. It > reports to the Chief Minister. MMRDA Chief, Dr. T. Chandrashekhar, has an > impressive track record of work in Thane. In Mumbai, he's been caught > between the politicians and the BMC. To give him credit, there's a lot of > work he's had done on the roads. However - and see below - this is the > first time he's taking such a strong stance. The battle between free > enterprise and urban planning? I'm on the MMRDA chief's side on this one. > I just hope this posturing doesn't ruin his career, because ultimately its > the politicians who are in charge. Somehow I just can't see this > litigation stand in court. Would love your thoughts. > > > > http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1108645 > > > > > > > MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > > MUMBAI: When the Tatas launch their Rs1 lakh car some time > next year, they could face a roadblock in Mumbai. T Chandrashekhar, who > heads the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), the > agency entrusted with the task of implementing the city's multi-crore > infrastructure projects, says that he would be the first to file a public > interest litigation (PIL) to stop the car's rollout in the city. > > Chandrashekhar believes that the city will never taste the > fruits of its infrastructure investments unless it rations the use of road > space and private vehicles. "The Tata car cannot be permitted (into the > city) as it would choke up Mumbai. The low cost would mean that all those > who can afford bikes will jump into the car segment. Then, no road space > will be enough to hold the sea of vehicles. The city will be doomed," he > warns. > > As metropolitan commissioner, Chandrashekhar is in charge of > redeveloping 150 km of roads in Mumbai, which includes both the Eastern > and Western Express Highways and the new east-west connecting roads ? the > Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road (JVLR) and the Santa Cruz-Chembur Link Road > (SCLR). He wants the state government to initiate strict vehicle > rationing. > > "Today, people are buying vehicles like they purchase > chocolates. Only those citizens who have parking space must be allowed to > buy cars. There should be a fixed quota of new vehicles sold in Mumbai. > And like London and Paris, the city must levy a congestion tax to de-clog > the roads," he adds. The MMRDA chief cautioned that in the next five > years, all the roads and flyovers will be inadequate if vehicular growth > is not controlled. > > That apart, Chandrashekhar also wants to control the influx of > job-seekers in Mumbai. He wants the city to introduce a work permit regime > in Mumbai. "Only those having a work permit and a valid house must be > provided basic amenities like ration card, telephone connection and power > supply," he said. > > > > Regards, > > Anupam Gupta > > > > > > > +91 22 6650 5074 > > > Mobile > > > > > > +91 98204 98981 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > CLSA CLEAN & GREEN: Please consider our environment before > printing this Email > > > > The content of this communication is subject to CLSA Legal and > Regulatory Notices, which can be viewed at > https://www.clsa.com/disclaimer.html or sent to you upon request. > > > > > ________________________________ > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages > via YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran- > discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. > The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post > to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem > like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people- > centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing > countries (the 'Global South'). > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via > YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss > to join the > real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups > version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real > sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). > Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > Sujit Patwardhan > sujit@vsnl.com > sujitjp@gmail.com > > "Yamuna", > ICS Colony, > Ganeshkhind Road, > Pune 411 007 > India > Tel: 25537955 > ----------------------------------------------------- > Hon. Secretary: > Parisar > www.parisar.org > ------------------------------------------------------ > Founder Member: > PTTF > (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) > www.pttf.net > ------------------------------------------------------ From chuwasg at yahoo.com Fri Jul 13 09:14:50 2007 From: chuwasg at yahoo.com (chuwa) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport In-Reply-To: <001801c7c4ce$d18aa560$0401a8c0@finn> Message-ID: <350371.98633.qm@web36903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Brendan, Eric, I feel you have touched on the core of the issue here. For the minority who know and care about the down side of private car, it simply doesn't make sense. But for the majority out there, private car is however a very desirable asset to have. It would need a new proposition so attractive that it would be difficult not to use PT. Thinking more about it, I really like Brendan's idea of mobile Starbucks, it make sense from both the supply and demand sides: - for the operator (such as Starbucks) it's like paying very low rent (just the driver and the bus) and have a captive customer base everyday. - for the passengers, such a public bus service will transform their daily hassle into a relax or productive moment. The free ride is the hook, selling expensive coffee and advertising space is the way to generate revenue for operation. Having said that, such bus service will find it hard to get me as a regular customer. Because I prefer to use a folding bike, which is both transportation and health generating, and give me the option to different solutions (MRT, Bus, Taxi) at any point in my journey. Brendan Finn wrote: ??? BODY { FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff } Eric, I don't disagree with the downsides, but I think you are missing the point. Car owners and wannabees don't want to know about downsides, they've already made up their minds. The auto industry has been very successful at selling an airbrushed dream. The current generation of car adverts avoid reality, and often show very little of the car itself. They present an image, an emotion, an illusion. It's the dream that people want, whether in Mumbai, Rio or Dubai. If you don't face up to that, your messages for public transport will fall on very deaf ears. Your targets don't want to hear what you have to say, they have ten-foot filters over their ears and eyes. Think Tommy. As Jack Nicholson put it, they can't handle the truth. And maybe we can't either. I think there are just two choices. 1) Cosh them over the head and coerce them into the mobility and urban solution we (in our infinite wisdom) think is best. They won't come willingly. 2) Engage with them on their terms, see public transport through their eyes, and do what it takes to make PT what you would choose to use. Is that even possible? What are the building blocks, and how do we combine them? How do we make PT part of a lifestyle for 21st Century? Can you imagine the hero on the bus, a mobile Starbucks, docking your PC on the way to work or play? I've been in the PT business for a quarter century and, quite frankly, much of the time I feel I'm on the side of the angels and in the clothes of a tramp. We need a makeover on our side. Yours in friendship, Brendan. _____________________________________________________________________________________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Bruun To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:26 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free publictransport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) Brendon You are listing the positive sides of having access to a car. The negative sides can also encourage transit use, even when the transit is mediocre. Here is the same list with a negative spin. - Image and self-image Embarassment because one can only afford a junker - All destinations available Huge tolls to some places - Always on, 24/7 Can't drive home after drinking - Quality and comfort Horrible heat, noise, etc. - Personal space Lonely - Reliability and speed Traffic jams and accidents - Ownership and possession Payments and licensiing hassles Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- From: Brendan Finn Sent: Jul 12, 2007 12:31 PM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) ??? In my opinion, cost of public transport is not a key issue for current car owners and for those who seriously aspire to become car owners. These people have the affordability to pay reasonable fares. Giving it away for free will not change their desire to own or use cars. Instead, it will place a heavy burden on the funding agencies, and put public transport entirely at the mercy of political view and expedience of whatever party or minister is in power. (If you want free transport to help the poor, that's a different argument, I'd still argue it's bad policy. If you want to offer a serious alternative to the car, you must face up what owners and wannabe-owners associate with the car : - Image and self-image - All destinations available - Always on, 24/7 - Quality and comfort - Personal space - Reliability and speed - Ownership and possession Public transport does not have to win on every one of these factors, but if it loses badly across the board, it has zero credibility with this target group. And if you then offer a loser service for free, it just proves to them that it wasn't worth paying for in the first place. Until public transport can meet the mobility and self-respect aspirations of people who travel, it is reduced to "the thing you have to use when you could not get what you want". Banning car ownership, sale or use will just make very many people very frustrated. In this, politicians are correct to guage the public mood and avoid unrest and backlash. That doesn't excuse the same politicians for poor transport policy in the first place. If you take the 7 factors above (or any other list you wish to make), how many public transport systems that you know perform well across the board for an entire metropolitan area? Even if they do, are they winning mode share back from cars? What choices are teenagers and 20-30 year olds making? I don't intend to be defeatist here, just realistic. If we have the tools to do the job, fine, maybe we need to use them a bit smarter. If not, then we'd better channel our energies into designing some new ones and showing that they work at city-scale. With best wishes, Brendan. _____________________________________________________________________________________ >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@indigo.ie tel : +353.87.2530286 ----- Original Message ----- From: Ashok Sreenivas To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:05 PM Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport (wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) IMO, a free (and of course reliable, comfortable) public transport (PT) may not shift *existing* car / motorcycle users to public transport, but it will have a significant impact on *potential* car / motorcycle users. A common phenomenon in "developing" countries like ours with easy access to 2-wheelers is the hierarchy of a PT user wanting to buy a 2-wheeler (and similarly 2-wheeler to 4-wheeler) as soon as he can afford it because the PT systems are so inconvenient and uncomfortable. I think this steady leaching of PT users as the economy grows can be arrested by not only improving PT but making it free (or very very cheap) so that the "entry barrier" to motorized transport is high. On 12/07/2007 8:24 PM, Carlos F. Pardo wrote: I'm not sure... People who use cars and pay gasoline and parking will not really be shifting to public transport if it's free (instead of having a low fare). Free public transport can be an instrument to improve access for the entire population, especially those who cannot afford it and go by bicycle or walking long distances. I think what would really generate mode shifts to public transport is that it is comfortable and reliable, and that it has as much access around the city as possible. We once used the word "fashionable" to describe this type of transport, but some people thought it was not an appropriate term. I think we all agree that car ownership and use must be charged at real costs, including all externalities, social and environmental (the 1 lakh car would be much more expensive if these costs were included). Push (from the car) and pull (to sustainable transport), and start planning from the demand side rather than supply (infrastructure). Best regards, Carlos Lee Schipper wrote: Not clear free trnasport really gets those who otherwise would use cars to use free trnasport. Seattle was unable to really do this (in the down town area) but did a great job of providing visitors like me with free trips around town. I think the last line below says it all ??? make sure the cost of using cars reflects all of societies costs and make sure organization and technical aspects of the collectiv system really provides a faster, safer, less costly alternative!. Sunny 7/12/2007 4:29:47 AM >>> Yes, Chuwa has a point. Providing free public transport will be a good option and it could be financed thru parking charges and car taxes. Just to add to the examples mentioned Perth, Australia has this service called CAT and they are like 3 different circular routes and the service is free and I was told that it is funded by the parking charges. Bangkok on the other hand provides free shuttle service to some of its skytrain (BTS) stations. IMO, Bangkok could also provide free NMT (rickshaws) into the small streets (sois) if this could be done the use of motorbike taxi could be reduced to a great extent. Singapore is definitely an example and it is also worth noting that people seldom complain of the economic instruments as they have affordable public transport and other alternatives to a car. So, in the end it again comes to putting more financial burden on car USERS and also to some extent on car owners. Making the car travel hard and at the same time providing affordable, safe and convenient (sustainable) public transport would be the solution. kind regards Santhosh K. (Sunny) Kodukula Project Assistant GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP ESCAP UN Building Rajadamnern Nok Rd. Bangkok 10200, Thailand Tel: +66 (0) 2 - 288 1321 Fax: +66 (0) 2 - 280 6042 Mobile: +66 (0) 84???113-0181 e-mail: santhosh.kodukula@sutp.org Website: www.sutp.org Skype: sunny_nwho chuwa wrote: Thanks to everyone, this thread has been highly stimulating and educating for me. I hope not to distract the discussion but just chance upon this article (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/07/05/NoFares1/) which make a interesting connection back to the current discussion of banning cheap cars. What can be more compelling than "cheap car"? What if instead of banning "cheap car", there is someone offering free & good public buses in Mumbai? To go all the ay, perhaps it can be a profitable business model to offer this service for free in exchange of an opportunity to be in touch with the mass. Like JCDecaux sponsor street furniture, or Google offer excellent free search engine for the world, both to capture a critical "touch point' with the mass. In Singapore, there are several "free" bus routes linking large shopping malls and MRT stations. Mentioned in the article, high quality free bus service in Hasselt, Belgium has been expended 500% since it started in 1996 and now has a ridership close to 4 Millions. --------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').-------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070712/f6d0f3f2/attachment.html From markus at sander.ms Fri Jul 13 18:19:08 2007 From: markus at sander.ms (Markus Sander) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:19:08 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <037f01c7c30c$1e485830$6b43fea9@P90CAD> References: <4cfd20aa0707092251w26c02efdsc9b0c9d4ee5dd7e2@mail.gmail.com> <037f01c7c30c$1e485830$6b43fea9@P90CAD> Message-ID: <20070713091907.GA24589@sander.ms> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 12:05:14PM -0400, Daryl Oster wrote: > The motorcycle, car, and jet have already beaten the bike, bus, and > train in transportation value > > The ONLY way to beat the car is by implementing a transportation mode > that offers a quantum improvement in VALUE for most people. I agree up to here. > The relative value of a transportation mode is the total benefits > divided by the total costs. Value is pest compared on a relative > monetary amount per passenger unit of distance traveled (e.g. cents > per passenger mile). 1) The VALUE is more than price/distance. For example, the car offers you to carry around a part of your private property. If someone parks a car, the parking space is temporarily his private territory. That's something you can't do with a bike (unless safe bike parking boxes are offered). 2) You are absolutely right that the car has beaten bike, bus and train by VALUE. The key problem is that USING a car is to cheap for the user. Car use is massively subsided: + exclusive road space for free. No one can walk, sit, trade, talk on a street dedicated for cars -> Solution "Road Pricing" or "Shared Space" + costs for parking garages are often subsided by the city council + bothering city inhabitants for free -> there's no "noise fee" + streets are build with money from *all* people, wheather they're using a car or not (other transportation modes need less road space) + car users also don't pay for the bad live quality they cause + car users don't pay for people that get sick of air pollution and/or noise + health insurances (which are paid from all people, not only car users) pay for the consequenses of car accidents, air pollution, ... In summary, use of car is cheap for the user and very expensive for the community. If car users had to pay for all the things they cause, the car would lose imediately. So I disagree that we have to change our strategy and offer something different that offeres improvement in value. We have to stop increasing the VALUE of a car use by subsidary. -- (c) markus From anjali.mahendra at gmail.com Sat Jul 14 01:48:47 2007 From: anjali.mahendra at gmail.com (Anjali Mahendra) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:48:47 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <20070712030140.264452E010@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> References: <20070712030140.264452E010@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> Message-ID: <003a01c7c56d$aff49f60$9600a8c0@AnjaliBala> Yes, I see the point about the relationship between household car ownership and use not being the same in all places. On Lee's point about the Danes, I have heard that those who own cars in Danish cities use them less within cities, where transit and bicycles are used much more. Total VMT are higher because cars are used for weekend trips, esp. visits to homes in the countryside. Is that right? The low car ownership seems correlated with income given that ownership taxes are so high. But you look at a city like Delhi in India where transit options have been dismal so far and worsened by the fast-paced spread of the city--and you find car ownership directly correlated with use. Cars are considered a "necessity". People consider themselves "handicapped" without a car. All working members of a household need a car--it's the only way they can get to work--and the way land is being developed has contributed to it. So you see dense apartment blocks with 4 cars per household and parking designed for a car per household. Chuwa's story of Penang sounds very familiar. The picture of car ownership in Mumbai is not as bad though it is worsening as the suburbs become denser (new laws for higher FSI in the suburbs are contributing to this). The richest of households own multiple cars where the minivan may be used mostly on weekends and not in the city, but by and large, car owners will use their cars in Indian cities. The prestige of owning a car and incentives provided through low-rate auto ownership loans coupled with close-to-nil parking (or other usage) charges for driving in the city, poor transit in many cases, and most importantly, the land development patterns make people own their car and drive it too. -Anjali From SCHIPPER at wri.org Sat Jul 14 02:21:10 2007 From: SCHIPPER at wri.org (Lee Schipper) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:21:10 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <003a01c7c56d$aff49f60$9600a8c0@AnjaliBala> References: <20070712030140.264452E010@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> <003a01c7c56d$aff49f60$9600a8c0@AnjaliBala> Message-ID: <46977C45.D997.0038.0@wri.org> Almost right. Sweden has the same kinds of weekend car use as Denmark, in fact commuting to vacation homes in Sweden uses far more fuel than the homes themselves. But there are more car=less people in Denmark than in Sweden -- simply more 1 car families and fewer two car families in Denmark. The car that is left in the family is used more. In other words, both countries have the same kinds of city car use, but Denmark gets the same use per capita out of fuel vehicles/capita. And the taxes in Denmark are so important that the government has been resistant to having lower acquisition and higher use taxes. The high acquisition taxes do force the Danes to live with significantly smaller cars than the swedes, who have the heaviest and most fuel intensive cars in Europe. But Danish new cars have fewer fuel saving technologies installed than the equivalent German new cars (where new car taxes are relatively light.) Lew Fulton did a very careful comparison of these countries' and US new cars when we were both at the IEA and that's what he found. Since energy-saving technology costs are also taxes at the same high rate in Denmark, the tax discourages implementation relative to Germany. fuel prices in the two countries were close, so it was hard not to conclude that the high taxes force the sizes of the cars down in Denmark but also discourage efficiency technology for a given car. Not surprisingly, US cars of roughly comparable sizes have fewer fuel saving options because fuel prices were so much lower (when we made the comparisons) in the US than either in Denmark or Germany! >>> "Anjali Mahendra" 7/13/2007 12:48 PM >>> Yes, I see the point about the relationship between household car ownership and use not being the same in all places. On Lee's point about the Danes, I have heard that those who own cars in Danish cities use them less within cities, where transit and bicycles are used much more. Total VMT are higher because cars are used for weekend trips, esp. visits to homes in the countryside. Is that right? The low car ownership seems correlated with income given that ownership taxes are so high. But you look at a city like Delhi in India where transit options have been dismal so far and worsened by the fast-paced spread of the city--and you find car ownership directly correlated with use. Cars are considered a "necessity". People consider themselves "handicapped" without a car. All working members of a household need a car--it's the only way they can get to work--and the way land is being developed has contributed to it. So you see dense apartment blocks with 4 cars per household and parking designed for a car per household. Chuwa's story of Penang sounds very familiar. The picture of car ownership in Mumbai is not as bad though it is worsening as the suburbs become denser (new laws for higher FSI in the suburbs are contributing to this). The richest of households own multiple cars where the minivan may be used mostly on weekends and not in the city, but by and large, car owners will use their cars in Indian cities. The prestige of owning a car and incentives provided through low-rate auto ownership loans coupled with close-to-nil parking (or other usage) charges for driving in the city, poor transit in many cases, and most importantly, the land development patterns make people own their car and drive it too. -Anjali -------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From sunny.enie at gmail.com Sat Jul 14 03:52:45 2007 From: sunny.enie at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 01:52:45 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <003a01c7c56d$aff49f60$9600a8c0@AnjaliBala> References: <20070712030140.264452E010@mx-list.jca.ne.jp> <003a01c7c56d$aff49f60$9600a8c0@AnjaliBala> Message-ID: <4697C9FD.7080604@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070714/ce6fa006/attachment.html From richmond at alum.mit.edu Sat Jul 14 07:00:40 2007 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:00:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [sustran] Critical Thinking paper Message-ID: As many of you would not otherwise read the journal in question, I thought I'd let you know that my paper on "Bringing Critical Thinking to the Education of Developing Country Professionals" has now been published in the International Education Journal. You can read it at http://iej.com.au and it is also on the professional page of my own web site. The paper is about how I developed coursework in transportation planning for a developing country setting. Hope you enjoy it, and comments will cetainly be appreciated --Jonathan! ----- Jonathan Richmond (617) 395-4360 e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From et3 at et3.com Sat Jul 14 07:45:54 2007 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:45:54 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <4697C9FD.7080604@gmail.com> Message-ID: <046701c7c59f$93523a20$0100a8c0@P90CAD> Sunny, Is it more appropriate to compare Singapore and HK to other cities or other countries? Daryl Oster (c) 2007? all rights reserved.? ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth" e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks of et3.com Inc.? For licensing information contact:?POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423? (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > -----Original Message----- > From: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org > [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of > Sunny > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 2:53 PM > To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport > Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > > Very nice, and yes the Indian scenario and it is pretty much the same in > most of the developing countries. The problem is projecting car as a > "need". This is clearly visible thru the lack of (improvement of) > infrastructure for other modes. Further, there is also this widespread > belief in developing countries that high car ownership means a good > economy (see newman and kenworthy or litman). Which is proved wrong by > wealthier countries in Asia eg. in Singapore and Hong Kong and also in > many countries in Europe. > > The lack of alternative and safe transport pushes the middle class towards > car ownership. While, at the same time the transport poor are still > becoming poorer. As long as the country or the city; to be more specific, > does not improve other means of travel cars will always be a need and > interlope in our daily lives. > > Sunny From et3 at et3.com Sat Jul 14 10:16:48 2007 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:16:48 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <20070713091907.GA24589@sander.ms> Message-ID: <046f01c7c5b4$a84c5b30$0100a8c0@P90CAD> > -----Original Message From Markus Sander; Sent July 13, 2007 5:19 AM > To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org > Cc: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' > Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 12:05:14PM -0400, Daryl Oster wrote: > > > The motorcycle, car, and jet have already beaten the bike, bus, and > > train in transportation value > > > > The ONLY way to beat the car is by implementing a transportation mode > > that offers a quantum improvement in VALUE for most people. > > I agree up to here. I am glad we agree that value improvement is key to sustainable transportation. > 1) The VALUE is more than price/distance. For example, the car offers > you to carry around a part of your private property. If someone parks a > car, the parking space is temporarily his private territory. That's > something you can't do with a bike (unless safe bike parking boxes are > offered). I agree that it is not only the direct costs that are important, but also external costs, AND time costs too. The benefit of transportation should be (in my mind anyway) fixed --moving people or goods between two points with reasonable safety and comfort - this is reduced to passenger*km, or ton*km units. And I also agree that there are many other non-transportation benefits that are not related to transportation, yet unfortunately are often a big part of people's transportation decision. Parking is related to transportation, and often is treated as a separate issue -- a storage problem = added cost. Fee based parking on public ROW is a common transportation cost. Public vehicles also have storage issues, if comparisons are made to cars, these storage costs for public transport vehicles must also be considered. > 2) You are absolutely right that the car has beaten bike, bus and train > by VALUE. The key problem is that USING a car is to cheap for the user. > Car use is massively subsided: > > + exclusive road space for free. No one can walk, sit, trade, talk on a > street dedicated for cars -> Solution "Road Pricing" or "Shared Space" I agree that roads are not always paid for exclusively be use fees like tolls or fuel tax, AND there are many areas where fuel a very high fuel tax is more than sufficient to pay for the roads AND in many cases diverted to pay for much more in addition. In the case of a small fuel efficient car (let's try to keep to the thread's topic), the fuel tax may cover less than the incremental space the car takes. A more equitable solution would be to cost by GPS tracking and billing by actual use (adjusted according to weight for instance so trucks that do more damage pay a higher cost for their space. This would add about $100 to the cost of the car, and would be offset in added value in use to avoid congestion, etc. > + costs for parking garages are often subsided by the city council Business owners will often provide parking to attract more business, and the cost is added to the cost of business service -- so it is then true that those who pay the same price (but require no parking) will subsidize some of the parking cost for those who use the parking. Fee based parking is common and generally fair (not incurring subsidy from others); yet fee based parking often subsidizes others! Consider that a parking garage in a CBD must pay property tax based on the highest and best use of the property -- and the tax rates are based on, and used to pay for many government services NOT inuring from parking cars. > + bothering city inhabitants for free -> there's no "noise fee" It is difficult to determine the value of silence, and cars are not the only things that make bothersome sound in a city. It is however possible to recover some cost from excessive noise. I have (in my younger days) received fines for having a car (or radio) too loud, and many municipalities have sound pressure limits that could incur fines if exceeded. In an effort to keep this thread on topic: In the case of the proposal to ban a particular high value car; how might this affect the noise? IMO, cars are often much quieter than the motorcycles they might displace. > + streets are build with money from *all* people, wheather they're using > a car or not (other transportation modes need less road space) Most governments place a heavy tax on motor fuels, and often the money is not used to build roads but diverted to other use. Please also consider that the typical speed of a car is often greater than a pedestrian or cyclist partially or completely compensating for the additional space required (more space but less time using that space could result in the same per passenger mile use factor). > + car users also don't pay for the bad live quality they cause Nor do cars always receive credit for the good living conditions they promote. (Muscle powered transportation is not completely cleans or healthy either - consider the manure problem in streets of old). When comparing value it is very important to compare with the same dispassionate terms and measures for all cost and benefit categories for all alternatives. > + car users don't pay for people that get sick of air pollution and/or > noise Nor do trains, or bikes, or pedestrians. Consider that pedestrians spread infectious germs more efficiently than someone in a car, so it could be possible that cars might be actually due some credit for a net saving of lives. To accurately sum all health costs and benefits of all transport modes to compare to Tata's Rs1 lakh would be a daunting study. Insurance rates are a good indicator of actual cost (or value). > + health insurances (which are paid from all people, not only car users) > pay for the consequenses of car accidents, air pollution, ... Most governments impose strict liability requirements on cars, and the relative risks of most car models can be accurately compared, and by law fully compensated for by insurance premium collection (plus a reasonable profit to the insurance company that underwrites the relative risk). > In summary, use of car is cheap for the user and very expensive for the > community. If car users had to pay for all the things they cause, the > car would lose imediately. This may be true, and it also may be true of ALL transportation modes -- even walking, and especially trains, or horses even worse. > So I disagree that we have to change our strategy and offer something > different that offeres improvement in value. We have to stop increasing > the VALUE of a car use by subsidary. > > -- > (c) markus A subsidy is a cost to non-beneficiaries, and you are correct that we must seek ways to eliminate subsidies for ALL modes to the greatest extent practical. IMO, an open and fair market that encourages innovation often finds better solutions than governments. I hope we agree on the use of the term "subsidy". --- A subsidy is gift that has no expectation of recovery. An investment (unlike a subsidy) IS recovered in a period of time through fees paid by those who use or benefit from the investment. I am all for improving the living condition of communities. Investing is sustainable transportation that maximizes value with out requiring (or giving) subsidy from (or to) non-beneficiaries is one of the best tools to use to accomplish this. A mode that requires subsidy (especially government subsidy) indicates poor overall value, while modes offering the highest possible ratio of total benefits to total costs (greatest value) will generally be profitable for a community. Best regards, Daryl Oster (c) 2007 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: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com From sunny.enie at gmail.com Sat Jul 14 11:56:33 2007 From: sunny.enie at gmail.com (Sunny) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 09:56:33 +0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <046701c7c59f$93523a20$0100a8c0@P90CAD> References: <046701c7c59f$93523a20$0100a8c0@P90CAD> Message-ID: <46983B61.6040408@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070714/54524a8f/attachment.html From c_bradshaw at rogers.com Sun Jul 15 03:03:10 2007 From: c_bradshaw at rogers.com (CHRIS BRADSHAW) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:03:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car In-Reply-To: <046f01c7c5b4$a84c5b30$0100a8c0@P90CAD> Message-ID: <830567.43110.qm@web88208.mail.re2.yahoo.com> [I am getting into this discussion late, as I have been travelling] I was glad to see so many others here challenge the statement, "It's about car USE, stupid." Car ownership does a great deal to _stimulate_ use: 1) by necessitating an expenditure and on-going invariable expenses that the owner tries to amortize over as much use as possible; 2) by inducing dependency over time ("carrying" along ever more stuff, living further and further away from destinations, and by doing less and less trip planning and less and less multi-modal information gathering); and 3) by underwriting the one-person-one-car regime that denies access not just to those without cars, but to all car owners to any vehicle but their own, necessitating them taking their car everywhere in order to ensure on-going car access for special (and often unexpected) trip segments. As was pointed out, it also causes use of energy and other resources for manufacture, transport to the dealer, and eventual disposal. In the context of introducing ultra-cheap cars, the effect will be to shift a sizable part of the current population of transit-dependent, location-sensitive people to the opposite: those who stop putting pressure on transit and walking environments to be better, stop shopping locally, and stop being active in their transportation (and losing their social and health benefits). Another factor, considering the low price, is whether the cars will last as long and be as safe at the hands of their owners as more expensive cars. The former will affect their ultimate value (something first-time buyers don't fully appreciate) and the latter will affect other road users. The car's pollution controls and ability to retain engine oil should also be suspected. One internal factor that buyers will experience -- the lighter weight and lower crash protection -- is unfortunate. Lacking carsharing, where the same amount of money will buy them more actual use (as well relieve them of the _need_ to drive), these people will be jumping into a road environment that can be characterized as "mass envy" where people buy bigger vehicles to get safety for themselves and other occupants as well as usually higher sitting position. Widespread carsharing not only could offer dramatically less demand for road and parking spaces, but the size of vehicles in cities, since it provides the opportunity for cities to set maximum vehicle sizes, thus reducing the _size_ of parking spaces, as well as their number, and other factors, such as bumper height and weight and pollution controls, or even the power source. The car industry is happy that these controls are national, and this is necessitated by the one-person-one-car regime that implies that people won't invest in a car unless they can drive it everywhere (and they want a car that is safe everywhere, even though it is unsafe for other users of the roads in most places it is driven). Car ownership and the regime that supports it removes individual freedom to gain access to transportation with a smaller 'footprint' and the flexibility to mix-and-match modes and vehicles in a truly seamless way. Ownership is a huge factor that the car industry and 99% of the environmental movement ignore, talking only about the design and use of "your car" as if the one-person-one-car regime was mandated from the heavens. Chris Bradshaw Ottawa (visiting Calgary) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070714/95c456be/attachment.html From shapshico at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 05:11:42 2007 From: shapshico at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gregorio_Villacorta_Alegr=EDa?=) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:11:42 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Urban Transport Indicators Message-ID: Hi Dear Friends. The Latin America International Forum of Rural Transport and Development is running a virtual discussion about Urban Transport Indicators, like part of a effort to get opinnions and commentaries about indicators in urban and rural Transport. I am member of the Latin America Forum, And We would like to hear your opinions, If somebody would like to send a message to the latin american forum, could do it trough me, We are going to translate it your mssage to the spanish and send it to the forum , and return it in english to you the commentaries of the others members. We will pleased to hear your experience. The discussion is going to be this week. PD: Sorry my bad english. Gregorio Villacorta Alegr?a Secretary of the Peruvian Forum of Rural Transport and Development. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070716/bbc9bf28/attachment.html From ericbruun at earthlink.net Tue Jul 17 07:28:25 2007 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:28:25 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car Message-ID: <10407681.1184624905791.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> In addition to what Lee said, I would like to add that Sweden has a luxury car industry exporting heavily and Denmark has no car industry. No wonder the policies are different. Also, there is a difference in trucks as well as cars between Europe and North America. Now that fuel prices are going up, trucks are starting to get more turbochargers, intercoolers, and other efficiency increasing devices. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: Lee Schipper >Sent: Jul 13, 2007 1:21 PM >To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > >Almost right. Sweden has the same kinds of weekend car use as Denmark, in fact >commuting to vacation homes in Sweden uses far more fuel than the homes themselves. >But there are more car=less people in Denmark than in Sweden -- simply more >1 car families and fewer two car families in Denmark. The car that is left in the family is used more. >In other words, both countries have the same kinds of city car use, but Denmark gets the same >use per capita out of fuel vehicles/capita. And the taxes in Denmark are so important that >the government has been resistant to having lower acquisition and higher use taxes. > >The high acquisition taxes do force the Danes to live with significantly smaller cars than the swedes, who have the heaviest and most fuel intensive cars in Europe. But Danish new cars have fewer fuel saving >technologies installed than the equivalent German new cars (where new car taxes are relatively light.) Lew Fulton did a very careful comparison of these countries' and US new cars when we were both >at the IEA and that's what he found. Since energy-saving technology costs are also taxes at the same >high rate in Denmark, the tax discourages implementation relative to Germany. fuel prices in the two countries were close, so it was hard not to conclude that the high taxes force the sizes of the >cars down in Denmark but also discourage efficiency technology for a given car. Not surprisingly, >US cars of roughly comparable sizes have fewer fuel saving options because fuel prices were so much >lower (when we made the comparisons) in the US than either in Denmark or Germany! > >>>> "Anjali Mahendra" 7/13/2007 12:48 PM >>> >Yes, I see the point about the relationship between household car ownership >and use not being the same in all places. On Lee's point about the Danes, I >have heard that those who own cars in Danish cities use them less within >cities, where transit and bicycles are used much more. Total VMT are higher >because cars are used for weekend trips, esp. visits to homes in the >countryside. Is that right? The low car ownership seems correlated with >income given that ownership taxes are so high. > >But you look at a city like Delhi in India where transit options have been >dismal so far and worsened by the fast-paced spread of the city--and you >find car ownership directly correlated with use. Cars are considered a >"necessity". People consider themselves "handicapped" without a car. All >working members of a household need a car--it's the only way they can get to >work--and the way land is being developed has contributed to it. So you see >dense apartment blocks with 4 cars per household and parking designed for a >car per household. Chuwa's story of Penang sounds very familiar. > >The picture of car ownership in Mumbai is not as bad though it is worsening >as the suburbs become denser (new laws for higher FSI in the suburbs are >contributing to this). The richest of households own multiple cars where >the minivan may be used mostly on weekends and not in the city, but by and >large, car owners will use their cars in Indian cities. The prestige of >owning a car and incentives provided through low-rate auto ownership loans >coupled with close-to-nil parking (or other usage) charges for driving in >the city, poor transit in many cases, and most importantly, the land >development patterns make people own their car and drive it too. > >-Anjali > > >-------------------------------------------------------- >IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > >Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). >-------------------------------------------------------- >IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > >Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From ericbruun at earthlink.net Tue Jul 17 07:45:15 2007 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:45:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: Value of modes Message-ID: <12329707.1184625915263.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Markus You are being too kind to agree with Daryl as far as you go. Saying that the motorcycle, car and jet have higher value is a gross overgeneralization. It depends on the situation. For my case, being forced to drive everywhere would diminish my quality of life, not to mention help to impoverish me. Moreover, many of the situations where the value is higher are a result of investment and planning choices that favor certain modes. For example: motorcycles seem far more attractive in places where decent public transport doesn't exist, and planes seem more attractive where train options don't exist. And much of the history of the 20th century, especially in the US of A and Canada, was one of business interests making sure that their infrastructure needs were favored. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: Markus Sander >Sent: Jul 13, 2007 5:19 AM >To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Cc: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' >Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > >On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 12:05:14PM -0400, Daryl Oster wrote: > >> The motorcycle, car, and jet have already beaten the bike, bus, and >> train in transportation value >> >> The ONLY way to beat the car is by implementing a transportation mode >> that offers a quantum improvement in VALUE for most people. > >I agree up to here. > >> The relative value of a transportation mode is the total benefits >> divided by the total costs. Value is pest compared on a relative >> monetary amount per passenger unit of distance traveled (e.g. cents >> per passenger mile). > >1) The VALUE is more than price/distance. For example, the car offers >you to carry around a part of your private property. If someone parks a >car, the parking space is temporarily his private territory. That's >something you can't do with a bike (unless safe bike parking boxes are >offered). > >2) You are absolutely right that the car has beaten bike, bus and train >by VALUE. The key problem is that USING a car is to cheap for the user. >Car use is massively subsided: > >+ exclusive road space for free. No one can walk, sit, trade, talk on a > street dedicated for cars -> Solution "Road Pricing" or "Shared Space" > >+ costs for parking garages are often subsided by the city council > >+ bothering city inhabitants for free -> there's no "noise fee" > >+ streets are build with money from *all* people, wheather they're using > a car or not (other transportation modes need less road space) > >+ car users also don't pay for the bad live quality they cause > >+ car users don't pay for people that get sick of air pollution and/or > noise > >+ health insurances (which are paid from all people, not only car users) > pay for the consequenses of car accidents, air pollution, ... > >In summary, use of car is cheap for the user and very expensive for the >community. If car users had to pay for all the things they cause, the >car would lose imediately. > >So I disagree that we have to change our strategy and offer something >different that offeres improvement in value. We have to stop increasing >the VALUE of a car use by subsidary. > >-- > (c) markus >-------------------------------------------------------- >IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > >Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From ericbruun at earthlink.net Tue Jul 17 07:45:14 2007 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [sustran] Re: Value of modes Message-ID: <26955692.1184625914559.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Markus You are being too kind to agree with Daryl as far as you go. Saying that the motorcycle, car and jet have higher value is a gross overgeneralization. It depends on the situation. For my case, being forced to drive everywhere would diminish my quality of life, not to mention help to impoverish me. Moreover, many of the situations where the value is higher are a result of investment and planning choices that favor certain modes. For example: motorcycles seem far more attractive in places where decent public transport doesn't exist, and planes seem more attractive where train options don't exist. And much of the history of the 20th century, especially in the US of A and Canada, was one of business interests making sure that their infrastructure needs were favored. Eric Bruun -----Original Message----- >From: Markus Sander >Sent: Jul 13, 2007 5:19 AM >To: sustran-discuss@list.jca.apc.org >Cc: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' >Subject: [sustran] Re: MMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car > >On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 12:05:14PM -0400, Daryl Oster wrote: > >> The motorcycle, car, and jet have already beaten the bike, bus, and >> train in transportation value >> >> The ONLY way to beat the car is by implementing a transportation mode >> that offers a quantum improvement in VALUE for most people. > >I agree up to here. > >> The relative value of a transportation mode is the total benefits >> divided by the total costs. Value is pest compared on a relative >> monetary amount per passenger unit of distance traveled (e.g. cents >> per passenger mile). > >1) The VALUE is more than price/distance. For example, the car offers >you to carry around a part of your private property. If someone parks a >car, the parking space is temporarily his private territory. That's >something you can't do with a bike (unless safe bike parking boxes are >offered). > >2) You are absolutely right that the car has beaten bike, bus and train >by VALUE. The key problem is that USING a car is to cheap for the user. >Car use is massively subsided: > >+ exclusive road space for free. No one can walk, sit, trade, talk on a > street dedicated for cars -> Solution "Road Pricing" or "Shared Space" > >+ costs for parking garages are often subsided by the city council > >+ bothering city inhabitants for free -> there's no "noise fee" > >+ streets are build with money from *all* people, wheather they're using > a car or not (other transportation modes need less road space) > >+ car users also don't pay for the bad live quality they cause > >+ car users don't pay for people that get sick of air pollution and/or > noise > >+ health insurances (which are paid from all people, not only car users) > pay for the consequenses of car accidents, air pollution, ... > >In summary, use of car is cheap for the user and very expensive for the >community. If car users had to pay for all the things they cause, the >car would lose imediately. > >So I disagree that we have to change our strategy and offer something >different that offeres improvement in value. We have to stop increasing >the VALUE of a car use by subsidary. > >-- > (c) markus >-------------------------------------------------------- >IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > >Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From operations at velomondial.net Tue Jul 17 15:49:50 2007 From: operations at velomondial.net (Pascal van den Noort) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:49:50 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Urban Transport Indicators Message-ID: <007601c7c83e$ad160ee0$9600000a@MPBV> Dear Gregorio, Maybe this helps: http://www.transportbenchmarks.org/ Greetings, Pascal J.W. van den Noort Executive Director Velo Mondial www.velomondial.net www.velo.info http://spicycles.velo.info operations@velomondial.net +31206270675 landline +31627055688 mobile phone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070717/0b8cea62/attachment.html From ranjithsd at sltnet.lk Tue Jul 3 19:34:04 2007 From: ranjithsd at sltnet.lk (Ranjith de Silva) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:34:04 +0600 Subject: [sustran] Re: Urban Transport Indicators In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0JLB003ANA7ZCD00@pop1.sltnet.lk> Dear Gregorio, Thank you for inviting SUSTRAN members to write about Transport indicators and linking up with Asia & Pacific. I am sure the experienced members of SUSTRAN AP network will contribute with their ideas and have focuses on different country contexts. Best regards. Ranjith Ranjith de Silva Regional Coordinator for Asia International Forum for Rural Transport and Development (IFRTD) Asia 310/10 Ramanayaka Mawatha Erawwala Pannipitiya 10230 Sri Lanka Phone: +94 11 2842972 / 5518180 Email: ranjith@ifrtd.org Web: www.ifrtd.org The IFRTD is a global network of individuals and organisations working together towards improved access, mobility and economic opportunity for poor communities in developing countries. _____ From: sustran-discuss-bounces+ranjithsd=sltnet.lk@list.jca.apc.org [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+ranjithsd=sltnet.lk@list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of Gregorio Villacorta Alegr?a Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:12 AM To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport Subject: [sustran] Urban Transport Indicators Hi Dear Friends. The Latin America International Forum of Rural Transport and Development is running a virtual discussion about Urban Transport Indicators, like part of a effort to get opinnions and commentaries about indicators in urban and rural Transport. I am member of the Latin America Forum, And We would like to hear your opinions, If somebody would like to send a message to the latin american forum, could do it trough me, We are going to translate it your mssage to the spanish and send it to the forum , and return it in english to you the commentaries of the others members. We will pleased to hear your experience. The discussion is going to be this week. PD: Sorry my bad english. Gregorio Villacorta Alegr?a Secretary of the Peruvian Forum of Rural Transport and Development. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070703/18c6afb7/attachment.html From laura.lauramachado at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 21:54:29 2007 From: laura.lauramachado at gmail.com (Laura) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:54:29 -0300 Subject: [sustran] Re: Urban Transport Indicators In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47b030540707170554u3c28a92vabe743ac75b419d4@mail.gmail.com> Buenas tardes Bueno, yo hago maestria en Urbanismo y mi pesquisa es sobre los indicadores de Transporte Urbano Sustenible. Me parece que el problema mayor que enfrentan las ciudades Latino americanas es que no tienen tecnologia o inversiones para poder medir los efectos causados por las descargas de los automoviles o el ruido. sds Laura 2007/7/16, Gregorio Villacorta Alegr?a : > > Hi Dear Friends. > > The Latin America International Forum of Rural Transport and Development > is running a virtual discussion about Urban Transport Indicators, like part > of a effort to get opinnions and commentaries about indicators in urban and > rural Transport. > > I am member of the Latin America Forum, And We would like to hear your > opinions, > If somebody would like to send a message to the latin american forum, > could do it trough me, We are going to translate it your mssage to the > spanish and send it to the forum , and return it in english to you the > commentaries of the others members. > > We will pleased to hear your experience. > > The discussion is going to be this week. > > PD: Sorry my bad english. > > Gregorio Villacorta Alegr?a > Secretary of the Peruvian Forum of Rural Transport and Development. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via > YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to > join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The > yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the > real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you > can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070717/15ef12e4/attachment.html From litman at vtpi.org Tue Jul 17 23:22:15 2007 From: litman at vtpi.org (Todd Alexander Litman) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:22:15 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Re: Urban Transport Indicators In-Reply-To: <47b030540707170554u3c28a92vabe743ac75b419d4@mail.gmail.com > References: <47b030540707170554u3c28a92vabe743ac75b419d4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20070717071930.070f57c0@mail.islandnet.com> You may want to review our report, "Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning" (http://www.vtpi.org/wellmeas.pdf ), which provides guidance on the selection of indicators for comprehensive and sustainable transportation planning. Also, the "Sustainable Transportation" chapter of our Online TDM Encyclopedia (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm67.htm ) has references that may be helpful. Unfortunately, they are only available in English. Best wishes, -Todd Litman >2007/7/16, Gregorio Villacorta Alegr?a ><shapshico@gmail.com>: >Hi Dear Friends. > >The Latin America International Forum of Rural >Transport and Development is running a virtual >discussion about Urban Transport Indicators, >like part of a effort to get opinnions and >commentaries about indicators in urban and rural Transport. > >I am member of the Latin America Forum, And We >would like to hear your opinions, >If somebody would like to send a message to the >latin american forum, could do it trough me, We >are going to translate it your mssage to the >spanish and send it to the forum , and return it >in english to you the commentaries of the others members. > >We will pleased to hear your experience. > >The discussion is going to be this week. > >PD: Sorry my bad english. > >Gregorio Villacorta Alegr?a >Secretary of the Peruvian Forum of Rural Transport and Development. > > >-------------------------------------------------------- >IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > >Please go to >http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >to join the real sustran-discuss and get full >membership rights. The yahoogroups version is >only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to >the real sustran-discuss (even if the >yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). >Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion >of people-centred, equitable and sustainable >transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). > > >-------------------------------------------------------- >IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > >Please go to >http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss >to join the real sustran-discuss and get full >membership rights. The yahoogroups version is >only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to >the real sustran-discuss (even if the >yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). >Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion >of people-centred, equitable and sustainable >transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA ?Efficiency - Equity - Clarity? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070717/9cc02201/attachment.html From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Jul 19 03:36:12 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:36:12 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Honda plans major expansion into Asia and other areas.... Message-ID: <469E5D9C.6080002@greenidea.info> *Honda, Japan's second biggest carmaker, has announced a major global expansion to meet fast-growing overseas demand.* Honda plans to build new plants in Thailand, Vietnam, India and Argentina, as well as a research centre in China. Highlight: The carmaker has also said it will plough in an investment of $65m to raise its production of motorbikes in Vietnam by 50% to 1.5 million units from the second half of 2008. -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From laura.lauramachado at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 06:55:52 2007 From: laura.lauramachado at gmail.com (Laura) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:55:52 -0300 Subject: [sustran] Fwd: Advice requested for saving railroad and starting transit on it In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20070717160311.028f8320@carfree.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20070717160311.028f8320@carfree.com> Message-ID: <47b030540707181455u1b74e935l1bf0bd78adcd8393@mail.gmail.com> >Dear Transit Executive, > >We would like to request your advice regarding (1) saving our railroad in the Seattle, WA area from a threatened scrapping and (2) starting a low cost, environmentally-friendly transit service on it. > >This is an urgent matter, because some local government officials are pushing to acquire the railroad from BNSF, its current owner, as quickly as possible in order to remove the tracks and replace them with a bicycle trail. Once the tracks have been removed (at an estimated cost of $66 million to the taxpayers), it would be extremely difficult both politically and financially to reinstall them. This could set back transportation and environmental progress in our area by decades. > >The 47 mile railroad runs through the eastern suburbs of Seattle, parallel to I-405, which is said to be the most congested freeway in the entire Northwestern U.S. It passes through or near most major destinations on the Eastside, a rapidly growing area that already has a population and level of economic activity that rival that of nearby Seattle. This includes passing near downtown Bellevue and directly through its growth path for future expansion to the east. Bellevue already has the second largest urban core in the state of Washington and is in the midst of a massive high rise construction boom. The railroad is in good condition for a branch line (despite claims to the contrary by its opponents), and it is used daily for both a dinner train and a small volume of freight service. > >More information about this situation can be found on our web site, www.eastsiderailnow.org. > >We would greatly appreciate any suggestions that you could provide based on your experience in the rail transit field and/or on similar situations that have occurred in your area. > >Thank you in advance for your assistance. > >Sincerely, > >Paul Zimmer >Eastside Rail Now! >www.eastsiderailnow.org >info@eastsiderailnow.org ----- ### ----- J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities mailbox@carfree.com http://www.carfree.com [carfree_network] list guidelines and unsubscribe information are found at http://www.worldcarfree.net/listservs/. Send messages for the entire list to carfree_network@lists.riseup.net. Send replies to individuals off-list. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070718/52072b24/attachment.html From paulbarter at nus.edu.sg Thu Jul 19 11:42:23 2007 From: paulbarter at nus.edu.sg (Paul Barter) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:42:23 +0800 Subject: [sustran] Reminder on sustran-discuss focus on low and middle income countries In-Reply-To: <47b030540707181455u1b74e935l1bf0bd78adcd8393@mail.gmail.com> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20070717160311.028f8320@carfree.com> <47b030540707181455u1b74e935l1bf0bd78adcd8393@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Many thanks to everyone who participates and makes sustran-discuss so useful. You are an amazing group. It seems a good time to make a little reminder: the sustran-discuss list has a focus mainly on urban transport policy issues in countries with low to middle incomes. We are not too rigid on this. The experience of rich places can be relevant. There were some examples in the excellent discussion on ownership issues prompted by Mumbai events. Some European examples came up and it was appropriate. Seattle's east side railroad in a suburban area in the USA would be one example of a topic outside sustran-discuss's focus. Thanks again everyone for all your generosity in sharing your thoughts. Voices from the 'global South' are particularly welcome. Paul (co-manager of the list) PS. the list is received by about about 450 people. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070719/6fdcd630/attachment.html From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Jul 19 17:23:55 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:23:55 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Reminder on sustran-discuss focus on low and middle income countries In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.2.20070717160311.028f8320@carfree.com> <47b030540707181455u1b74e935l1bf0bd78adcd8393@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <469F1F9B.8080504@greenidea.info> Paul Barter wrote: > > Many thanks to everyone who participates and makes sustran-discuss so > useful. You are an amazing group. > > It seems a good time to make a little reminder: *the sustran-discuss > list has a focus mainly on urban transport policy issues in countries > with low to middle incomes.* > > We are not too rigid on this. The experience of rich places can be > relevant. There were some examples in the excellent discussion on > ownership issues prompted by Mumbai events. Some European examples > came up and it was appropriate. > > Seattle's east side railroad in a suburban area in the USA would > be one example of a topic outside sustran-discuss's focus. > WHAT is most interesting for me and what I think has global applications is the the extremely perverted way this threat to the railway has been created... that it is part of a very complicated landgrab and landswap... more, it seems, than bad transport policy in a rich nation. So, my feeling is that since that kind of stuff could happen anywhere some lessons could be learnt.... the transport thing is this sense just a "hook"... .. BUT will there also be situations soon in the countries which are the main focus of this List where highways are next to railways and arguments start to widen the highway and lose the railway? (perhaps I am contradicting myself)... finally, if the hundreds of the people on this list show solidarity with the supporters of that railway project - I am going to see if World Carfree Network's Mobility Justice Campaign (which, by the way, as I understand it, put pressure on World Bank and govt. in Dhaka to be more accepting of pedal rickshaws) will want to take this on - than, when there is another problem in the Global South, maybe the Washington State people would be able to return the favour, so to speak. One planet. - T > Thanks again everyone for all your generosity in sharing your > thoughts. Voices from the 'global South' are particularly welcome. > > Paul > > (co-manager of the list) > > PS. the list is received by about about 450 people. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Thu Jul 19 20:13:58 2007 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlos F. Pardo) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 06:13:58 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Rise on automobile production Message-ID: <469F4776.6020309@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070719/1695b8d3/attachment.html From sutp at sutp.org Thu Jul 19 23:44:02 2007 From: sutp at sutp.org (SUTP Team) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:44:02 +0700 Subject: [sustran] GTZ Sourcebook in HTML format Message-ID: <469F78B2.9040301@sutp.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070719/14b8c0d6/attachment.html From ericbruun at earthlink.net Fri Jul 20 03:21:37 2007 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:21:37 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: Car ownership vs use and free public transport(wasMMRDA will file PIL to block Tata's Rs1 lakh car) Message-ID: <8998808.1184869298088.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070719/f72b5a58/attachment.html From markus at sander.ms Sat Jul 21 01:07:33 2007 From: markus at sander.ms (Markus Sander) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:07:33 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Value of modes In-Reply-To: <26955692.1184625914559.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <26955692.1184625914559.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20070720160733.GA2791@sander.ms> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 06:45:14PM -0400, Eric Bruun wrote: > You are being too kind to agree with Daryl as far as you go. Saying > that the motorcycle, car and jet have higher value is a gross overgeneralization. Of course it is. Daryl says it by adding "for most people" to his sentence. Don't forget that these "most people" didn't even try a different transportation mode. > It depends on the situation. For my case, being forced to drive > everywhere would diminish my quality of life, not to mention help to > impoverish me. Thats you (also my) point of view. Did you ever meet people that (seriously) laugh at you because your car has less than 100PS (horse powers)? > Moreover, many of the situations where the value is higher are a result of investment and planning choices that favor certain modes. That's exactly what I tried to point out with the subsidary-examples. Of course, a car is very handy when you live in an infrastructure that is desinged for cars. I would make car users pay for this infrastructure. > >On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 12:05:14PM -0400, Daryl Oster wrote: > > > >> The motorcycle, car, and jet have already beaten the bike, bus, and > >> train in transportation value > >> > >> The ONLY way to beat the car is by implementing a transportation mode > >> that offers a quantum improvement in VALUE for most people. > > > >I agree up to here. > > -- (c) markus From et3 at et3.com Sat Jul 21 00:20:45 2007 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:20:45 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Reminder on sustran-discuss focus on low and middleincome countries In-Reply-To: <469F1F9B.8080504@greenidea.info> Message-ID: <039901c7cae1$8d2282d0$e2c4ca4b@P90CAD> > Original Message From: Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:24 AM > WHAT is most interesting for me and what I think has global applications > is the the extremely perverted way this threat to the railway has been > created... that it is part of a very complicated landgrab and > landswap... more, it seems, than bad transport policy in a rich nation. > So, my feeling is that since that kind of stuff could happen anywhere > some lessons could be learnt.... the transport thing is this sense just > a "hook"... > > .. BUT will there also be situations soon in the countries which are the > main focus of this List where highways are next to railways and > arguments start to widen the highway and lose the railway? (perhaps I am > contradicting myself)... finally, if the hundreds of the people on this > list show solidarity with the supporters of that railway project - I am > going to see if World Carfree Network's Mobility Justice Campaign > (which, by the way, as I understand it, put pressure on World Bank and > govt. in Dhaka to be more accepting of pedal rickshaws) will want to > take this on - than, when there is another problem in the Global South, > maybe the Washington State people would be able to return the favour, so > to speak. > > One planet. > > - T Todd, There is a perception that passenger rail transportation is more affordable for low to middle income countries -- this is a fallacy for several reasons. It is true that the ton-kilometer cost of bulk cargo railroad transportation is about 1/4 the ton-kilometer cost of bulk cargo road transportation when considering point to point transport between a source such as a mine, and a destination such as a port. It is also true that the ton-km cost of bulk transport by water is less than half the cost by train. Why is it then that trains displaced canals for most bulk and passenger transport? The reason is that railroads offered much lower accessibility costs for MOST people and goods -(not all people or goods), and on average, building a railroad offered investors a better return on investment than building a canal. One reason canals were more costly is that they were far more constrained by geography than railroads, and also relied on water supply. For a given investment, railroads offered far better accessibility to resources and populations. Trains quickly displaced most (not all) barge travel, as trains offered lower total trip cost (in both time and money) for most people. If a country without any transportation infrastructure were to demand a tax from all their citizens to make a transportation improvement, why would they invest in a canal that may provide transportation for a very few at half the cost of a railroad? The reason is that a far higher percentage of the population would derive direct benefits from a railroad than they would a canal. Many along a potential canal route would correctly make the case that a canal would offer lower external costs of much less noise, less pollution, less visual intrusion, etc, than a train track, but the bottom line is the benefit to cost ratio for the train would typically be better with the consideration of all the additional routes that trains could provide accessibility to that canals could not. The accessibility of a transportation network is roughly proportional to the number of nodes squared, so investing in a rail network would likely provide a far better overall return than investing in a canal network. The governments of un-developed or underdeveloped countries must invest their limited resources on infrastructure that offers the greatest benefit to cost ratio transportation for the highest percentage of the population they serve. This offers the greatest transportation sustainability. Since undeveloped countries are unencumbered by existing transportation networks, they must consider employing the transportation technologies that offer the lowest possible transportation cost for the highest percentage of their population when considering the likely fullest extension of the network in the future. Daryl Oster (c) 2007 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: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com From et3 at et3.com Sat Jul 21 05:50:35 2007 From: et3 at et3.com (Daryl Oster) Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:50:35 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Value of modes In-Reply-To: <20070720160733.GA2791@sander.ms> Message-ID: <03e101c7cb0f$a01a3ad0$e2c4ca4b@P90CAD> > Original Message From Markus Sander; Friday, July 20, 2007 12:08 PM > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 06:45:14PM -0400, Eric Bruun wrote: > > > You are being too kind to agree with Daryl as far as you go. Saying > > that the motorcycle, car and jet have higher value is a gross > > overgeneralization. > > Of course it is. Daryl says it by adding "for most people" to his > sentence. Don't forget that these "most people" didn't even try a > different transportation mode. Eric and Marcus, Any statement that applies to a majority of the population is a generalization. I said: "The ONLY way to beat the car is by implementing a transportation mode that offers a quantum improvement in VALUE for most people." Markus, as you point out, the language of my statement clearly indicates it is general. It is usually easy to point to specific instances that are contrary to any generalization; if we are to have a meaningful discussion of mode value, let us continue to remain general, and focus on how various modes are able to meet transportation needs of "most people" in a developing economy, as this is a core issue in determining true sustainability of a transportation mode. Don't you agree? > > It depends on the situation. For my case, being forced to drive > > everywhere would diminish my quality of life, not to mention help to > > impoverish me. > > Thats you (also my) point of view. Did you ever meet people that > (seriously) laugh at you because your car has less than 100PS (horse > powers)? I have had people seriously laugh at me for: driving a car with too much power, too little power, too big, too small, too expensive, too cheap, wrong brand, wrong color, etc. -- and it was all the same car! Consistent with the focus and mission of sustran, let's not focus on me or you, but continue to focus on "most people", and specifically most people in developing economies who are desiring to improve their mobility. > > Moreover, many of the situations where the value is higher are a result > > of investment and planning choices that favor certain modes. > > That's exactly what I tried to point out with the subsidary-examples. Of > course, a car is very handy when you live in an infrastructure that is > desinged for cars. I would make car users pay for this infrastructure. Eric and Marcus, I am glad we agree that any mode investments should be paid for only by those who benefit. If one is concerned with planning and investing in transportation infrastructure for a developing national economy, should not the planners focus on comparing infrastructure investment alternatives according to the required fees for the chosen mode being fully paid for by those who use it? Should not the focus be to implement the mode that offers the greatest percentage of the population the most transportation accessibility and value for a given investment? Is it not likely that since investments in roads have been more productive than rail investments in developed nations (for most people) that the same will hold true in developing nations (for most people)? One cannot expect a mode that offers lower relative transportation value to displace a mode offering greater relative transportation value. It is prudent to note that road investments (like rail investments before that, and canal investments before rail), are reaching the limits of sustainability. There are new mode alternatives that offer the same likelihood of value improvement over roads as railroads offered most people compared to canals. The time is ripe to consider the new modes that offer improved sustainability than roads when compared on a "total benefit to total cost ratio" basis. Daryl Oster (c) 2007 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: POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com From ericbruun at earthlink.net Sun Jul 22 07:06:48 2007 From: ericbruun at earthlink.net (Eric Bruun) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:06:48 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [sustran] Re: more on value of modes Message-ID: <10710734.1185055608201.JavaMail.root@elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Daryl This will be my last comments to your thread, as I think the moderator rightly doesn't like these kinds of discussions to ramble on. I don't object to "generalizations" being made, I object to "gross overgenralizations". I don't agree to your concept that selecting of modes is only about what works for "most people". "Most people" of an entire nation don't go into the Central Business District of a large city every day. Does this mean that we should only support automobiles? The time concentration and location concentration of travel have a great deal to do with what are the appropriate modes (note the plural). Or what about the large percentage of persons who are too old or young to drive, have disabilities, or simply don't want the responsiblity of driving -- can we ignore their mobility needs because they are in a minority? In the United States, this minority is about 100 million people. In India it is probably in the hundreds of millions of people. I don't agree either that modes should be paid for ONLY by those who benefit. Your definition of benefit seems to be confined to the movement from point A to point B. Your definitions of benefits and costs are too narrow. People benefit (and get costs imposed on them) in a variety of ways depending upon what modes are being favored or have been historically favored by public policy. Just a couple of examples: People who like to drive actually benefit as well when people who are willing to use public transit do so. It would be physically impossible in any kind of efficient city for every person to drive a car for every trip (assuming, unrealistically, that they all had a driver's licence and could afford a car). People who want to walk or bicycle benefit from investments in a public-transit oriented urban form because this is complementary to their needs, but are largely deprived of this ability in a car-dependent urban form. People who prefer the auto-based lifestyle don't compensate these people in any way for the involuntary imposition of an auto-based lifestyle that is forced upon them as well. Benefits can be even more indirect. For example, we all will benefit from reduced global warming if some of us are given the option not to drive. All of these examples show why a monetary subsidy to non-auto modes might be justifed. On the other hand, making auto users pay more than they personlly benefit from their auto might also be justified as their personal benefits comes with far more externalities than traveling by transit, by bicycle or by walking. Eric -----Original Message----- >From: Daryl Oster >Sent: Jul 20, 2007 4:50 PM >To: 'Global 'South' Sustainable Transport' >Subject: [sustran] Re: Value of modes > > > >> Original Message From Markus Sander; Friday, July 20, 2007 12:08 PM >> >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 06:45:14PM -0400, Eric Bruun wrote: >> >> > You are being too kind to agree with Daryl as far as you go. Saying >> > that the motorcycle, car and jet have higher value is a gross >> > overgeneralization. >> >> Of course it is. Daryl says it by adding "for most people" to his >> sentence. Don't forget that these "most people" didn't even try a >> different transportation mode. > > >Eric and Marcus, >Any statement that applies to a majority of the population is a >generalization. >I said: "The ONLY way to beat the car is by implementing a transportation >mode that offers a quantum improvement in VALUE for most people." > >Markus, as you point out, the language of my statement clearly indicates it >is general. It is usually easy to point to specific instances that are >contrary to any generalization; if we are to have a meaningful discussion of >mode value, let us continue to remain general, and focus on how various >modes are able to meet transportation needs of "most people" in a developing >economy, as this is a core issue in determining true sustainability of a >transportation mode. Don't you agree? > > >> > It depends on the situation. For my case, being forced to drive >> > everywhere would diminish my quality of life, not to mention help to >> > impoverish me. >> >> Thats you (also my) point of view. Did you ever meet people that >> (seriously) laugh at you because your car has less than 100PS (horse >> powers)? > >I have had people seriously laugh at me for: driving a car with too much >power, too little power, too big, too small, too expensive, too cheap, wrong >brand, wrong color, etc. -- and it was all the same car! > >Consistent with the focus and mission of sustran, let's not focus on me or >you, but continue to focus on "most people", and specifically most people in >developing economies who are desiring to improve their mobility. > > >> > Moreover, many of the situations where the value is higher are a result >> > of investment and planning choices that favor certain modes. >> >> That's exactly what I tried to point out with the subsidary-examples. Of >> course, a car is very handy when you live in an infrastructure that is >> desinged for cars. I would make car users pay for this infrastructure. > >Eric and Marcus, > >I am glad we agree that any mode investments should be paid for only by >those who benefit. If one is concerned with planning and investing in >transportation infrastructure for a developing national economy, should not >the planners focus on comparing infrastructure investment alternatives >according to the required fees for the chosen mode being fully paid for by >those who use it? > >Should not the focus be to implement the mode that offers the greatest >percentage of the population the most transportation accessibility and value >for a given investment? > >Is it not likely that since investments in roads have been more productive >than rail investments in developed nations (for most people) that the same >will hold true in developing nations (for most people)? > >One cannot expect a mode that offers lower relative transportation value to >displace a mode offering greater relative transportation value. It is >prudent to note that road investments (like rail investments before that, >and canal investments before rail), are reaching the limits of >sustainability. > >There are new mode alternatives that offer the same likelihood of value >improvement over roads as railroads offered most people compared to canals. >The time is ripe to consider the new modes that offer improved >sustainability than roads when compared on a "total benefit to total cost >ratio" basis. > > >Daryl Oster >(c) 2007 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: POB 1423, Crystal River >FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3@et3.com , www.et3.com > >-------------------------------------------------------- >IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > >Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > >================================================================ >SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). From edelman at greenidea.info Sat Jul 28 01:07:04 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:07:04 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Delays loom for traffic blackspot projects Message-ID: <46AA1828.2050707@greenidea.info> However, professor Ingo Hansen of Delft University of Technology told Trouw that expanding roads only attracted more traffic. ?And to say that because cars are cleaner that the air quality will not worsen is too optimistic,? he told the paper. www.dutchnews.nl -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From edelman at greenidea.info Sat Jul 28 01:15:39 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:15:39 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Delays loom for traffic blackspot projects In-Reply-To: <46AA1828.2050707@greenidea.info> References: <46AA1828.2050707@greenidea.info> Message-ID: <46AA1A2B.9060303@greenidea.info> Hi, Sorry, but that was supposed to go someone else... but hopefully it is useful..... - T Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory wrote: > However, professor Ingo Hansen of Delft University of Technology told > Trouw that expanding roads only attracted more traffic. ?And to say that > because cars are cleaner that the air quality will not worsen is too > optimistic,? he told the paper. > > www.dutchnews.nl > > -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From edelman at greenidea.info Mon Jul 30 17:49:29 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:49:29 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Indian railways chug into the future Message-ID: <46ADA619.7050602@greenidea.info> ...Over the past year Indian Railways has generated profits of $4.5bn - double that of India's largest private company, Reliance Industries.... -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From sutp at sutp.org Tue Jul 31 21:24:18 2007 From: sutp at sutp.org (SUTP Team) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:24:18 +0700 Subject: [sustran] GTZ-SUTP Newsletter (May-July, 2007) Message-ID: <46AF29F2.6060803@sutp.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070731/385f512e/attachment.html From richmond at alum.mit.edu Tue Jul 31 22:07:40 2007 From: richmond at alum.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:07:40 +0400 (Russian Daylight Time) Subject: [sustran] Transport agency reform consultant wanted; also advice on setting up busway! Message-ID: I would appreciate advice on two things... I am working in Mauritius as the government's adviser on a range of transport strategic planning issues. Top priority is the establishment of a new Land Transport Authority to replace existing dysfunctional and duplicative transport bureaucracies. With financial assistance from the World Bank, the government is developing terms of reference for a consulting team to plan and put in place the new organization, designed to perform its role in an integrated and streamlined way, and to high standards of performance. World Bank procedures allow us to shortlist six consulting companies to receive and bid on the terms of reference. I would very much appreciate nominations of worthy firms that can perform this role. The companies should have excellent experience in organizational development, but also be specifically equipped to work in the public sector and with transport organizations. The company must also have the sensitivity to deal with local government and cultural practices which may be different from those at their home base. Please forward me suggestions! Next on my priority list is to work on establishment of a new busway to enhance bus service and reduce congestion in the Port Louis - Curepipe corridor. If any of you have done busway development work, I would appreciate some help in formulating an initial plan covering major steps we need to take in implementing the busway. Many thanks for any guidance on either of these topics! --Jonathan! ----- Jonathan Richmond Transport Adviser to the Government of Mauritius Ministry of Public Infrastructure, Land Transport and Shipping Level 4 New Government Centre Port Louis Mauritius +230 717-7556 +1 (617) 395-4360 (US phone number) e-mail: richmond@alum.mit.edu http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/ From edelman at greenidea.info Tue Jul 31 22:58:47 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:58:47 +0200 Subject: [sustran] A political storm threatens to put the lights out in Guatemala(n Railways) Message-ID: <46AF4017.9020406@greenidea.info> A political storm threatens to put the lights out in Guatemala LIGHTNING is not supposed to strike twice, but this seems to have happened to Railroad Development Corporation (RDC), the US specialist in railway privatisation. No sooner have RDC and its partners recovered from the shock of being forced out of Estonia as a result of the railway being taken back under state control, than the privatised railway in Guatemala is being forced to close. Although the circumstances are different, in both cases, a change in government, which led to an abrupt change in policy, is the primary cause of putting an end to private rail operation. In both countries, railway privatisation was initiated by the government. In Estonia, part of the national railway was privatised as a going concern, but in Guatemala rail operations had ceased, requiring a huge effort to get trains running again initially on the eastern part of the network. RDC and its partners bid in good faith for both concessions, and in Guatemala RDC was the only bidder. So it was hardly a case of privatisation being forced on unwilling governments. RDC was awarded a 50-year concession in 1998 in exchange for maintaining the railway and paying the government 11.25% of revenue. The new concessionaire, Guatemala Railways (FVG), reopened the 322km 914mm-gauge line between Guatemala City and the Caribbean port of Puerto Barrios in 1999, three years after operations had ceased. By 2004, RDC had invested $US 15 million in the railway and annual freight traffic had built up to 150,000 tonnes. The next objective was to reopen the railway to the Pacific coast which has greater traffic potential than the eastern section. ?We were on the glide path to self-sufficiency because we had been increasing the quality of the traffic we carry and we had negotiated leases for the use of the right-of-way,? says Mr Henry Posner III, chairman of RDC. Posner says this was achieved despite Fegua, the former state railway that owns the infrastructure, failing to meet its own contractual responsibilities. That was until the Guatemalan government declared that the rolling stock element of the concession was against the interests of the state. This was clearly a device to force RDC out of Guatemala, especially as the locomotives and wagons are very old. ?Fegua is the landlord of the railway,? says Posner. ?They are there to make sure we don?t steal anything, but they stole it. We appealed, but they changed the law arguing that the previous government had done a bad deal, so they should take it back. There are two ways to make money: create wealth or steal it.? The declaration has had a devastating effect on the railway, which already had to contend with squatters on the tracks, and criminals trying to steal the infrastructure. A private utility company has erected electricity transmission lines on the railway, sugar barons have built roads on railway land, and FVG has found it impossible to evict squatters and traders from railway property. Traffic has plummeted forcing FVG to announce that train services will cease on October 1. Posner believes the government wants to give the railway to its cronies. ?Unfortunately, the railway is worth more dead than alive,? he says. ?The government is acting on behalf of the Guatemalan private sector to use the right-of-way for other purposes.? Fortunately for RDC, Guatemala is a member of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (Cafta), which covers Central America, the United States and the Dominican Republic. Cafta provides an impartial forum outside Guatemalan law in which to obtain compensation. RDC has filed a claim with the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes seeking compensation from the Guatemalan government of at least $US 65 million. The process could take up to two years, which effectively will put an end to Guatemala?s rail revival. This is certainly not the outcome hoped for by Posner, who is a railwayman through and through. ?Our experience in Guatemala has not shaken our faith in capitalism, but it does question our faith in the rule of law,? he says. ?Estonia should have put us off Europe, but we are still looking at opportunities there. Peru is our best operation. We have good relations with the government and strong partners - it is a textbook example of how well it can be done.? Private companies depend for their success on a fair and just legal system. This means that contracts entered into with one government must be honoured by subsequent governments. If a government changes its policy and wishes to terminate a contract, then there should be fair compensation. Whether or not RDC wins its case against the Guatemalan government, there will be few actual winners. Certainly, the chances of reviving the railway in Guatemala for a second time will be virtually non-existent, and it will make investors more wary, which will be a great shame. -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman www.flickr.com/photos/edelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net