Where can we find this app?

The idea is familiar: i.e., making use of the smart phone with GPS in our
pocket, and putting it to work to help us calibrate and understand a range of
interconnected variables related to our mobility choices. Both (a) as the now
more familiar on-line information system that can help us make better travel
choices, and, less well known, (b) as a feedback system which will permit us to
understand the key implications of those specific choices. Including where we
travel, when and how -- and as a result the health, economics and environmental
impacts of our choices, and if possible both personal and collective.  Think of
such an app as a healthy mobility feedback kit in our pocket.

There are of course literally thousands of transport apps out there today of
various intentions and quality, a number of them really excellent.  But where
are the ones that also provide user feedback and decision criteria on (a) those
specific mobility choices and (b) their impacts on health, environment,
economics? Does such an app exist, and if so please share your information with
us so that we all can have a look and learn from good examples?

For starters and to do the full job, these apps would have to provide the more
usual functions of the full range of mobility choices open to each of us, in
that place and at that time: both the phone and database know who you are, your
location, and to a certain extent your historic transport preferences. On that
base you then tap in your desired destination, desired time or conditions of
transit (either right now or scheduled at some future time as you prefer). Your
app will then present what it guesses are your likely preferences stacked and
presented to you in the order that the database knows you usually prefer -- as
well as the by now pretty usual range of information on likely time in transit,
CO2 impacts, etc., etc. Handy stuff and pretty well served by many apps already
out there doing the job in different places.

Again we open up this kind of tool and use it not because we HAVE to -- but
because we figure it is in our interest to do so. And of course once we get the
habit, we just do it without really thinking about it. And in the process we
have moved up the effectiveness scale from active to passive reactions, the
latter being far more powerful.  Just the kind of thing that is needed to get on
the path to sustainability.

But that's just the first layer. However before we get to the second layer, a
few quick words about the challenge of sustainability on our benighted  wheezing
planet.

At the heart of the move to sustainability, in all senses, is the idea that we,
one by one, are going to have to modify our behavior and replace many old
habits, some bad, with ones that may benefit us, both personally and
collectively  Now we are not taking about "behavior modification" at the hands
of some dark government agency or merciless Soviet doctor/scientist sitting at a
threatening console controlling electrodes attached to our who-knows-where
parts. But rather a personal willingness of our part to change, if only a bit,
simply we understand that this or that decision and action will be to our
personal benefit. And perhaps, why not?, beneficial in some small way to society
as a whole.  Changing because we want to, not because we are forced to.

Now back to that app. What I want it to tell me is, for example, if I walk or
bike on my next trip, or hop into my car, what will be the personal health
impacts of my choice. And if possible not simply in the frame of calories
burned, but also against the backdrop of a more personalized health
database/app.

Ditto for the financial impacts (on my purse and that of the community as a
whole), the effect on traffic, the environmental impacts, etc. And so on down
the mobility choice chain.

Our good app might at the end of each week/month present us with a summary of
the various key implications of our aggregate mobility choices over that period.

Finally, our good app will have to be open and programmable so that it can be
easily and legally adapted to work in different places.

Now where is that app we should be looking at here?

/Eric Britton

My basic app for successfully integrating transport modes uses a
modulated sound source, combined with light and sound receptors and a
superb high speed processor which requires no external power supply.  It
has often delivered solutions that the formal algorithms used on fixed
and portable computers often fail to deliver as well.

But in collating data I often catch up with other factors relating to
our use of transport systems, and their impact on health & wellbeing, so
I'll share a couple with you here.

1) In discussing road safety with a bus driver, we noted that many of
the past couple of generations growing up in our 'Western' culture need
to be taught some very basic skills quite late in life, in order to use
the full spectrum of transport choice.  It is not uncommon for
Universities to have to teach incoming students how to catch a bus, and
I suspect (and have experience of) a substantial group who are left to
their fate making their first train journey in their mid 20's.

We noted that there was a perceived 'spike' in pedestrian and cycle
casualties when new students arrived (September) and a Darwinian process
applied to basic activities, such as crossing the street or making a
journey by bike.  Has anyone researched this?

2) Those who drive our buses and trucks have a seriously sedentary
working day, which would doubtless benefit from building in active
travel to get to and from their workplace.  Avoidable disease such as
Type 2 Diabetes is reported to have a heightened occurrence for those
who sit for long periods at the wheel.  Has anyone studied this as an
aspect of healthy travel which may be slipping through the net?

To close this a last question.  Has any road safety campaign (ideally
for all road users) focussed on the key pieces of safety equipment that
almost every road user has, and should be using to maximum capacity.  I
refer to eyes, ears, and brains.  The limitation of eyes having only 120
degrees is compensated for by the 360 degree coverage of ears, and the
facility to integrate this through the brain.  Far more effective than
the last resort intervention of protective equipment (ie helmets) is the
first line use of hazard elimination or avoidance and making the eyes
the route to delivery of safer travel.

Dave Holladay

On 17/06/12 11:57, eric britton wrote:
> Where can we find this app?
>
> The idea is familiar: i.e., making use of the smart phone with GPS in our
pocket, and putting it to work to help us calibrate and understand a range of
interconnected variables related to our mobility choices. Both (a) as the now
more familiar on-line information system that can help us make better travel
choices, and, less well known, (b) as a feedback system which will permit us to
understand the key implications of those specific choices. Including where we
travel, when and how -- and as a result the health, economics and environmental
impacts of our choices, and if possible both personal and collective.  Think of
such an app as a healthy mobility feedback kit in our pocket.
>
> There are of course literally thousands of transport apps out there today of
various intentions and quality, a number of them really excellent.  But where
are the ones that also provide user feedback and decision criteria on (a) those
specific mobility choices and (b) their impacts on health, environment,
economics? Does such an app exist, and if so please share your information with
us so that we all can have a look and learn from good examples?
>
> For starters and to do the full job, these apps would have to provide the more
usual functions of the full range of mobility choices open to each of us, in
that place and at that time: both the phone and database know who you are, your
location, and to a certain extent your historic transport preferences. On that
base you then tap in your desired destination, desired time or conditions of
transit (either right now or scheduled at some future time as you prefer). Your
app will then present what it guesses are your likely preferences stacked and
presented to you in the order that the database knows you usually prefer -- as
well as the by now pretty usual range of information on likely time in transit,
CO2 impacts, etc., etc. Handy stuff and pretty well served by many apps already
out there doing the job in different places.
>
> Again we open up this kind of tool and use it not because we HAVE to -- but
because we figure it is in our interest to do so. And of course once we get the
habit, we just do it without really thinking about it. And in the process we
have moved up the effectiveness scale from active to passive reactions, the
latter being far more powerful.  Just the kind of thing that is needed to get on
the path to sustainability.
>
> But that's just the first layer. However before we get to the second layer, a
few quick words about the challenge of sustainability on our benighted  wheezing
planet.
>
> At the heart of the move to sustainability, in all senses, is the idea that
we, one by one, are going to have to modify our behavior and replace many old
habits, some bad, with ones that may benefit us, both personally and
collectively  Now we are not taking about "behavior modification" at the hands
of some dark government agency or merciless Soviet doctor/scientist sitting at a
threatening console controlling electrodes attached to our who-knows-where
parts. But rather a personal willingness of our part to change, if only a bit,
simply we understand that this or that decision and action will be to our
personal benefit. And perhaps, why not?, beneficial in some small way to society
as a whole.  Changing because we want to, not because we are forced to.
>
> Now back to that app. What I want it to tell me is, for example, if I walk or
bike on my next trip, or hop into my car, what will be the personal health
impacts of my choice. And if possible not simply in the frame of calories
burned, but also against the backdrop of a more personalized health
database/app.
>
> Ditto for the financial impacts (on my purse and that of the community as a
whole), the effect on traffic, the environmental impacts, etc. And so on down
the mobility choice chain.
>
> Our good app might at the end of each week/month present us with a summary of
the various key implications of our aggregate mobility choices over that period.
>
> Finally, our good app will have to be open and programmable so that it can be
easily and legally adapted to work in different places.
>
> Now where is that app we should be looking at here?
>
> /Eric Britton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> The New Mobility/World Transport Agenda
> Consult at: http://NewMobility.org
> To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
> To subscribe:  WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> To unsubscribe:  WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Bogotá has just pedestrianised a stretch of the city center's main
road (séptima, between 19th and 26th) since january, and commerce
representatives have said that their sales went down since then but
they don't have detailed data or a comprehensive before-after report.

Pardo

Probably written while riding a bicycle. Please excuse typos.

On 23/06/2012, at 3:38, eric britton <eric.britton@...> wrote:

> Has anyone here ever run across a solid report or study showing that local
> businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made bike
> accessible?
>
>
>
> Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such improvements are made?
>
>
>
> Most of us here know about the other side of this coin, but it occurred to
> me that this such references might be useful to us all, given that these
> local conflicts and claims come up time and time again in cities around the
> work..
>
>
>
> Kind thanks/Eric Britton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> PS.  Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________
>
>  Francis  Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director /  Editor
>
>  New Mobility Partnerships  <http://www.newmobility.org/>   | World Streets
> <http://www.worldstreets.org/>  |  The Equity/Transport Project
> <http://equitytransport.wordpress.com/>
>
>  9, rue Gabillot   69003 Lyon France  |  T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 5088
> 0787  | E.  <mailto:eric.britton@...> eric.britton@...   |
> S. newmobility
>
>  9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA  90210  |   Tel. +1 213  985 3501  |
> eric.britton@...  |  Skype: ericbritton
>
>
>
> P Avant d'imprimer, pensez à l'environnement
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable
and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global
South').

 

1.  Well, in the US, there were a number of pedestrianized malls created in the 1960s and 1970s.  With a couple of exceptions, most have been removed.  They weren't successful for multiple reasons: (1) cities were depopulating; (2) locally-owned stores in downtowns were decamping to the suburbs; (3) community mental health facilities weren't created as a part of the deinstitutionalization movement and so center cities became a kind of holding place for "street people" (people with health and substance abuse issues that made it difficult for them to live "normally"); (4) locally owned department stores failed, further reducing the impact of downtown as a commercial destination.

So basically, streets were pedestrianized simultaneously with a severe decrease in the number of pedestrians, and an increase in other problems.  As someone said on a now defunct Project for Public Spaces e-list on public space (maybe it's another list topic to pick up and run with as part of the New Mobility Agenda), plants don't animate places, people do.  And so having motorized traffic has been considered to be an important albeit not lovingly component of place activation.

The places in the US where pedestrian malls continue to be successful are limited, but are in places where there are great numbers of pedestrians, either as college students (Boulder, CO; Burlington, VT; to some extent Charlottesville, VA--there are vacancies there) or in tourist areas (Santa Monica, CA; Miami Beach, FL [I think]).  I wrote a blog entry about Boulder's pedestrian mall a few years ago, which is cited within this entry: http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2009/04/todays-trends-with-pedestrian-malls.html

Boulder's mall in fact is highly managed to be active, which is key to its success.

2.  David Feehan, formerly director of the Intl. Downtown Assn., co-authored a journal article on the topic (I don't know if it was accepted), and I can ask him if I can forward it to the list.  He also distinguishes between "transit malls" like Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis and 16th St. in Denver, where transit is part of the mall, just not motor vehicles.  (There is also the bus mall in Portland, OR, although cars do go on it too.  It has been recently redesigned.  When I was there in 2005, I thought it was grim.)

A professor, Kent Robertson, wrote a bunch of articles on the topic in the 1990s.  E.g., http://uar.sagepub.com/content/26/2/250.abstract

3.  As far as one way streets go, interestingly, I read an article in the Ann Arbor Observer more than 20 years ago about the impact of making Glen St. one way in the late 1960s.  The gas station located on the street had a 50% drop in business.  In fact, the IRS audited them because they didn't believe it.

4.  When I was in Montreal for vacation in July 2010, some merchants on St. Catherine Street had a campaign against the Art Festival on the street, which banned cars for many blocks (from the Rue Berri-UQAM station pretty far down but not all the way (I think) to the Papineau Station.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=bc8e730d-3ee8-46bd-8e7f-2073b0102417

And Montreal has a number of other pedestrian street initiatives--near McGill U, and in the Old City.  I bet Zvi Leve could offer some insights as to what merchants think today.

Richard Layman



From: eric britton <eric.britton@...>
To: Sustran-discuss@...; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; UTSG Mailing List (Z UTSG Mailing List -) <utsg@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 4:37 AM
Subject: WorldTransport Forum local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized

 
Has anyone here ever run across a solid report or study showing that local businesses suffer financially when a zone is pedestrianized or made bike accessible?
 
Or that real estate prices take a nose dive when such improvements are made?
 
Most of us here know about the other side of this coin, but it occurred to me that this such references might be useful to us all, given that these local conflicts and claims come up time and time again in cities around the work..
 
Kind thanks/Eric Britton
 
 
 
 
PS.  Please note new addresses and phone numbers as of 24 April 2012
 
_____________________________________________________________
  Francis  Eric Knight-Britton, Managing Director /  Editor
  New Mobility Partnerships   | World Streets |  The Equity/Transport Project
  9, rue Gabillot   69003 Lyon France  |  T. +339 8326 9459| M. +336 5088 0787  | E. eric.britton@...  |  S. newmobility
  9440 Readcrest Drive. Los Angeles, CA  90210  |   Tel. +1 213  985 3501  |  eric.britton@...  |  Skype: ericbritton
   

P Avant d'imprimer, pensez �  l'environnement

 

I think I understand why people might believe that pedestrianisation might harm
their business.

Suppose one believes that
(a) For people who have a car available for a given shopping journey, the choice
is likely to be between driving to a car friendly area and to a pedestrian
friendly area;
(b) For people who do not have a car available, there is likely to be no choice
at all because of limitations on how far one can walk or cycle, or (especially
for people living in rural areas) the availability of public transport;

Then it would seem to follow that there is nothing to lose and everything to
gain by being car friendly. Pedestrians and cyclists may well be spending more
overall, but they will be doing so in any case (assuming that what they buy is
determined primarily by what they need, which of course may not be the case, but
I suspect it's more likely to be so for them than for motorists).

I often feel that consumer resistance to the idea of paying to park has not been
overcome, and there are many motorists who as a matter of principle will drive
to somewhere where they can park free even if this means paying more in extra
fuel costs than they are saving. (Though they will simultaneously complain about
the high price of fuel !)

I think that there is only one way out of this problem: impose a tax on parking
space provided by shops for their customers. Even if retailers in peripheral
areas choose to absorb this tax, they will be in a less favourable competitive
position than if they are able to make society as a whole pay for the cost of
the traffic they generate.

  Simon Norton

From http://www.facebook.com/IndiaStreets today:

DELHI'S MULTI-MILLION PUBLIC TRANSPORT FAILURE: A series of mistakes doomed
Delhi's "Bus Rapid Transit" corridor before it ever got rolling.

There is a certain smug, almost joyful desire to pillory the Delhi BRT project,
and while it seems to me like BAU when I read it in certain Indian sources,
coming out of the mouths of babes and sucklings in of all places The Alaska
Dispatch -- -- kind of makes one wonder what the gent that wrote it had for
breakfast that day. I like the way he ends in a bang, not a whimper-- "So much
for green transport." QED eh?

# # #

The Streets of India on Facebook welcomes comments, articles, references,
graphics and whatever else it takes to get the point of sustainable transport,
sustainable cities and sustainable lives across in the world's largest and most,
surely, original democracy.  Sign in to http://www.facebook.com/IndiaStreets




.

There is considerable debate among transport economists concerning how to
correctly value congestion delay and travel time costs. The conventional
practice, which evaluates transport system performance based primarily on
vehicle traffic speeds and roadway level-of-service, is inherently biased in
favor of mobility over accessibility and automobile travel over other modes.
More comprehensive project evaluation should at least consider the following
factors:

* Comprehensive congestion evaluation. Many economists criticize the way
that congestion impacts and costs are quantified. See
http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0505.pdf.

* The barrier effect (delay that motor vehicle travel imposes on
non-motorized travel). Incorporating this factor recognizes that expanding
roads and increasing vehicle traffic reduces accessibility for many
travelers, and therefore imposes travel costs as well as benefits. See
http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0513.pdf .

* The tendency of roadway expansion to generate traffic and induce sprawl,
which reduces the congestion reduction benefits of highway expansion,
increases external costs (downstream congestion, parking subsidies,
accidents, fuel consumption and pollution emissions). See
http://www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf.

* The full costs of accommodating increased vehicle traffic. For example,
each additional urban roadway lane typically accommodates 2,000 to 4,000
commute trips, each of which requires an additional parking space - costs
that are avoided if the same trips are made by public transport. Similarly,
automobile travel requires each user to have a vehicle, improving public
transit can allow some households to reduce their vehicle ownership,
providing large consumer cost savings. Taking into account parking and
vehicle ownership costs will often shift the "preferred option" from highway
to transit improvements - yet by tradition these are ignored in conventional
project evaluation.

* Non-drivers travel demands, and therefore the inherent efficiency and
equity value of improving transport system diversity. See
http://www.vtpi.org/choice.pdf .


For more information see:

Steve Abley, Paul Durdin and Malcolm Douglass (2010), Integrated Transport
Assessment Guidelines, Report 422, Land Transport New Zealand
(www.nzta.govt.nz); at www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/422.

ITDP (2012), Transformando La Movilidad Urbana En M�xico (Transforming Urban
Mobility In Mexico), Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
(www.mexico.itdp.org); at
http://mexico.itdp.org/documentos/transformando-la-movilidad-urbana-en-mexic
o.

ITDP (2012), Transforming Urban Mobility In Mexico: Towards Accessible
Cities Less Reliant on Cars, Institute for Transportation and Development
Policy (www.mexico.itdp.org); at
http://mexico.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/Transforming-Urban-Mobility-in-Mex
ico.pdf.

ITDP (2012), El Coche Nos�, Institute for Transportation and Development
Policy (www.mexico.itdp.org) and Trek Films; at
http://mexico.itdp.org/galeria/videos/el-coche-nos, with English subtitles
at http://mexico.itdp.org/archivo/galeria/videos.

Booz Allen (2012), Integrating Australia�s Transport Systems: A Strategy For
An Efficient Transport Future, Infrastructure Partnership Australia
(www.infrastructure.org.au); at
www.infrastructure.org.au/DisplayFile.aspx?FileID=812.

Todd Litman (2007), Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning,
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at
www.vtpi.org/access.pdf .

Todd Litman (2011), Comprehensive Transport Planning, VTPI (www.vtpi.org);
at www.vtpi.org/comprehensive.pdf.

PennDOT & NJDOT (2008), Smart Transportation Guidebook, Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation and the New Jersey Department of
Transportation, Smart Transportation Partnership
(www.smart-transportation.com); at
www.smart-transportation.com/guidebook.html.

Nariida C. Smith, Daniel W. Veryard and Russell P. Kilvington (2009),
Relative Costs And Benefits Of Modal Transport Solutions, Research Report
393, NZ Transport Agency (www.nzta.govt.nz); at
www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/393/docs/393.pdf.


Sincerely,
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman@...
facebook.com/todd.litman
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
�Efficiency - Equity - Clarity�


-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org@...
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org@...] On Behalf
Of Madhav Badami, Prof.
Sent: July-26-12 7:46 AM
To: bruun@...; Alok Jain
Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com;
Sustainable Transport in the south
Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport."

Eric et al,

Indeed! Let me re-state my posting more precisely: Sadly, assigning a high
value even for small time savings for car users, WHILE NOT VALUING RESULTING
TIME LOSSES FOR OTHERS, and thereby swaying the results in the favour OF CAR
USERS is more the norm, than heresy. Even more sadly, what this approach
leads to in the long run is misery for all, including car users, as other
modes become unviable, and people who have access to cars are compelled to
use them even for trips for which cars are easily avoidable (this effect is
in addition to the sprawl and longer commuting distances that you talk
about, Eric).

Following this approach is bad enough in contexts in which the majority,
even if not everyone, has access to cars. It is obscenely criminal in
contexts in which the vast majority does not.

According to Ivan Illich, who was a philosopher (and not a transportation
engineer), and therefore perhaps understood better, said in his classic
Energy and Equity that motorized vehicles "create remoteness which they
alone can shrink. They create distances for all and shrink them for only a
few"; automobile passengers become "consumers of others' time"; and finally,
that motorized vehicles (and planning for them) "steal time from (poor)
groups and reallocate it to usually richer groups".

Madhav

************************************************************************

"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." -- George
Orwell

Madhav G. Badami, PhD
School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment McGill University

Macdonald-Harrington Building
815 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada

Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work)
Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643
URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning
www.mcgill.ca/mse
e-mail: madhav.badami@...
________________________________________
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@...
[sustran-discuss-bounces+madhav.g.badami=mcgill.ca@...] on
behalf of bruun@... [bruun@...]
Sent: 26 July 2012 10:27
To: Alok Jain
Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com;
Sustainable Transport in the south
Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport."

Alok

No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical cost-benefit
analysis. We may think it is a bad idea, but it is quite common.

The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an outrage it
can be is to compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy business person's
commute with saving a full hour for a poor person. If the rich person earns
12 times as much, then according to this technique saving the rich person 5
minutes is just as valuable as saving the poor person a full hour.

Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings promotes
sprawl. All evidence shows that eventually time saved turns into longer
commuting distance instead.

Eric Bruun



Quoting Alok Jain <alok.priyanka@...>:

> Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based on
> value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for car users
> thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is obviously heresy.
> I will only know it once I have a sight of the full report.
>
>
> On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote:
>
>> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car traffic,
>> the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point going into the
>> argument of whether they constitutes  BRT or not. That debate is
>> futile and meaningless.)
>>
>> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in CRRI's
>> study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to the value
>> judgments they made regarding the assignment of these weights.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain <alok.priyanka@...>
wrote:
>> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with BRT,
>> everybody busy pointing fingers.
>>
>> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahme
>> dabad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no
>>
>> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul 25,
>> 2012, 03.46AM IST Article Comments
>>
>>
>> inShare
>>
>> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad BRT
>> Works|Ahmedabad BRT
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and poorly
>> executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting the messenger.
>> It has not only questioned the study conducted by the Central Road
>> Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched a scathing attack on the
>> institute itself.
>>
>> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it
>> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted the
>> study of ignoring bus commuters.
>>
>> But berating car owners will in no way make the public transport
>> system any better - for that governance has to improve ? just as
>> launching a tirade against CRRI will not make a dent in the
>> organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S Gangopadhyay, told
>> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions for
>> decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used for the
>> study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used international
>> norms employed in such studies."
>>
>> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government getting
>> stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best option. It has
>> been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the government. It may help to
>> recall that the agency had been hired by Delhi government on the
>> suggestion of the court, which had rejected the transport
>> department's plan to hire RITES for the study. Incidentally, RITES in
>> a 2004 study of transport solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 BRT
>> corridors. Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not only on
>> a week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of field
>> surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The simulation was of
>> the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 with and without
>> BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the base, factoring in an
>> annual increase in traffic of 5-7%.
>>
>> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a decrease
>> of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease in delay on the
>> stretch. Compare this to the option of continuing with BRT, which
>> would result in a further increase in travel time of 13% in
>> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor.
>>
>> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user perception,
>> occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger flows and saturation
>> flow studies ? show that BRT is not working at its optimum at
>> present. Said a transport department official, "There is no denying
>> that there are traffic issues on the stretch. Unlike the Ahmedabad
>> BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an open corridor."
>>
>> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It observes
>> that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that of Ahmedabad on
>> the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which contributes to the lower
>> journey speeds. This, says the report, is because the "width of the
>> available MV lane is only 7-8m in either direction of travel". This
>> width is less than the 10m width available for each direction of
>> travel before BRT was conceived.
>>
>> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system, the
>> commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus composition is
>> about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The observed average speed
>> of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies between 22-25kmph (CEPT
>> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS -
>> 13-15kmph)."
>>
>> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi
>> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad BRT to
>> continue with its floundering experiment.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
>> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>>
>> ================================================================
>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
>> countries (the 'Global South').
>>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------
To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss

================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South').
--------------------------------------------------------
To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss

================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South').

The broader questions about allocation of scarce public resources to improving
social welfare are important - practically, few if any societies I know of make
well-assessed, cross-sectoral decisions (better toilets or more BRT lanes....?).

With respect to the travel time question, it is important to clarify the
difference between individual VOT (which we actually do need to know to begin to
attempt to make some reasonable estimate of demand by different user groups) and
the societal VOT which should be used for project appraisal (and, in theory,
allow one to determine - better toilets, more BRT lanes....).  "Social" values
of time (not individual) have long been recommended for project appraisal;
transparency in the approach is CRUCIAL - as pointed out in this thread: whose
time is being weighted and by what weight?  Given the large number of public
transport users and a very strong equity argument which could be made for the
importance of their time, I find it impossible to believe that any TRANSPARENT,
reasonably well-done evaluation of BRT in Delhi would not strongly support that
option relative to other transportation projects (although, again, perhaps the
public monies would be better spent on sanitation infrastructure for all I
know).

For a thorough, modestly technical, publicly available overview, with good
recommendations (somewhat easily generalizable, in theory...):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52889305/The-Value-of-Travel-Time-Savings-in-Evaluatio\
n


As to what the users do with their saved time and costs (move to the suburbs,
make more trips, buy more tea, ...) - I believe the negative consequences should
be accounted for and dealt with in the respective markets.  In practice, I know
that is a real can of worms; but, whether times savings will be re-invested in
longer distances ("sprawl") or whether the congestion will accelerate sprawl is
an open question.  Undoubtedly both forces are at work, but not improving
transportation conditions for the poor at the risk of inducing sprawl seems a
bit misguided to me.



Chris Zegras, MIT-DUSP
http://czegras.scripts.mit.edu/web/
one step
Tel: 617 452 2433


-----Original Message-----
From: Visweswar [mailto:vissu.indian@...]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:42 AM
To: Anjali Mahendra
Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; Sustainable Transport in the south;
NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [sustran] Re: "So much for green transport."

Anjali,

I think you really made a valid statement " our methods of analysis need serious
revisiting " . It is extremely pitiful to see that discrimination exists in
every aspect of life, discriminating poor is not new in India. We "rehabilitate"
slums and build malls and develop IT parks, we are in the process of renovating
several airports in India and already have invested hundreds of Crores of rupees
building fancy airports in all Indian metro.
But do we ever care of providing cleaner toilets in our railway stations as a
minimum? Seriously we don't need experts nor their expertise to do analysis and
justify airports, we need good human beings and fellow citizens who value and
understand needs of everyone and not only the rich.
It is so stupid to see that we value the hunger of a rich car owner more than
the hunger of a poor bus commuter. VOT needs to be put in
trash.....1000 rupees of a rich person might buy him a days fuel for his car but
the same 1000 rupees of a poor bus commuter would meet months of his commuting
needs, so whose 1000 rupees is more valuable??

Visweswara Rao Gantasala.
Transportation Planner, IBI Group.

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Anjali Mahendra
<anjali.mahendra@...>wrote:

> I agree, and your ideas are good.  The problem is pervasive in every
> area of transport policy.  Thinking about toll roads and congestion
> pricing, an area I work on quite a bit -- toll rates are set based on
> average incomes in a corridor and on average values of time, deepening
> the equity impact on poor drivers.  While strategies exist to mitigate
> this impact, I do think our methods of analysis need serious
> revisiting.  I'm glad you deal with this in your book.
>
> -Anjali
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM, <bruun@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Anjali
> >
> > Yes, what the US Dot suggests is certainly better than assigning
> > each individual commuter their own value of time based on their
> > income, as the theorists would
> like
> > to do.
> >
> > But there is still a large bias between corridors based on average
> income.
> > There is no escaping the fact that a corridor with a higher average
> income
> > along it will still have higher total monetized time savings
> > benefits
> than
> > a corridor with poorer people, given the same actual travel time
> reduction
> > on both corridors. Thus, it is still easier to justify building both
> > highways and transit for the wealthy than the poor.
> >
> > In my book I argued against monetizing the time savings and instead
> > break it down into actual time by demographic group to see what the
> distribution
> > of time savings is (and perhaps even increases in time for some
> > people as our professor from Mc Gill pointed out.)
> >
> > Eric Bruun
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting Anjali Mahendra <anjali.mahendra@...>:
> >
> >  I agree with Eric that it is standard practice, which is why
> neoclassical
> >> economics is never the right approach to analyze such
> >> transportation policy issues.  However, interestingly, here's a
> >> guidance document from the
> U.S.
> >> DOT that recommends using the same hourly values of time for
> >> auto/car drivers and transit passengers:
> >> http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/**policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-**03.pdf<
> http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOTrevision1_2-11-03.pdf>
> >>
> >> Values of time also vary by trip purpose.  Values of time for a
> >> poor person commuting to work and a rich person going shopping may
> >> well be similar.
>  I
> >> wonder if CRRI accounts for that.
> >>
> >> Has there been any work/research on values of time in large cities
> >> of
> the
> >> developing world that anyone could direct me to?
> >> A couple of years ago, I prepared a guidance document on conducting
> >> exactly such an analysis in the U.S. context, of converting an
> >> existing lane on
> an
> >> arterial for BRT. I would appreciate any feedback:
> >> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/**onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_**352.pdf<
> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_352.pdf>
> >>
> >> The Delhi BRT is what it is and has its issues: poor execution,
> >> it's
> not a
> >> BRT but simply dedicated bus lanes, poor selection of pilot
> >> corridor,
> and
> >> interesting issues Alok raised earlier like problems with driver
> training.
> >>  But, it certainly deserves a rigorous analysis to identify the
> >> issues that must be tackled as more corridors are considered.
> >>
> >> -Anjali
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM, <bruun@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Alok
> >>>
> >>> No, it isn't heresy. It is standard practice for neoclassical
> >>> cost-benefit analysis. We may think it is a bad idea, but it is
> >>> quite common.
> >>>
> >>> The way to criticize it so that the public understands what an
> >>> outrage it can be is to compare saving 5 minutes for a wealthy
> >>> business person's commute with saving a full hour for a poor
> >>> person. If the rich person earns 12 times as much, then according
> >>> to this technique saving the rich person 5 minutes is just as
> >>> valuable as saving the poor person a full hour.
> >>>
> >>> Even worse, using this kind of justification for time savings
> >>> promotes sprawl. All evidence shows that eventually time saved
> >>> turns into longer commuting distance
> instead.
> >>>
> >>> Eric Bruun
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Quoting Alok Jain <alok.priyanka@...>:
> >>>
> >>> > Initial feedback that I received was that this report was based
> >>> > on value of time judgements and assigns a much higher VOT for
> >>> > car users thereby swaying the results in their favour. This is
> >>> > obviously heresy. I will only know it once I have a sight of the full
report.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On 25-Jul-2012, at 8:24 AM, Karthik Rao-Cavale wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> So essentially the argument is that since Delhi has more car
> >>> >> traffic, the city cannot have dedicated bus lanes (no point
> >>> >> going into the argument of whether they constitutes  BRT or
> >>> >> not. That debate is futile and meaningless.)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> But I would like to see the weighting of bus and car trips in
> >>> >> CRRI's study. Their claims to expertise have no relevance to
> >>> >> the value judgments they made regarding the assignment of these
weights.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Alok Jain
> >>> >> <alok.priyanka@...
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >> The Delhi BRT Saga continues. Instead of fixing problems with
> >>> >> BRT, everybody busy pointing fingers.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> http://timesofindia.**indiatimes.com/city/delhi/**
> >>> CRRI-explained-why-Ahmedabad-**BRT-works/articleshow/**
> >>> 15133172.cms?intenttarget=no<
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/CRRI-explained-why-Ahmed
> abad-BRT-works/articleshow/15133172.cms?intenttarget=no
> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> CRRI explained why Ahmedabad BRT works Rumu Banerjee, TNN | Jul
> >>> >> 25, 2012, 03.46AM IST Article Comments
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> inShare
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Read More:CRRI|Central Road Research Institute|BRTS|Ahmedabad
> >>> >> BRT
> >>> >> Works|Ahmedabad BRT
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> NEW DELHI: In its desperation to save its ill-conceived and
> >>> >> poorly executed BRT project, Delhi government is now shooting
> >>> >> the messenger. It has not only questioned the study conducted
> >>> >> by the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI) but also launched
> >>> >> a scathing attack on the institute itself.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Falling back on its worn-out argument of a rich-poor divide, it
> >>> >> called car owners "arrogant" and accused those who conducted
> >>> >> the study of ignoring bus commuters.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> But berating car owners will in no way make the public
> >>> >> transport system any better - for that governance has to
> >>> >> improve ? just as launching a tirade against CRRI will not make
> >>> >> a dent in the organisation's reputation. CRRI director, Dr S
> >>> >> Gangopadhyay, told
> >>> >> TOI: "CRRI has been researching on road and transport solutions
> >>> >> for decades. If anyone has questions about the methodology used
> >>> >> for the study, we will be happy to answer. Our report has used
> >>> >> international norms employed in such studies."
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Gangopadhyay's reaction comes in the wake of the government
> >>> >> getting stung by CRRI's finding that "no BRT" was the best
> >>> >> option. It has been promptly dubbed "anti-poor" by the
> >>> >> government. It may help to recall that the agency had been
> >>> >> hired by Delhi government on the suggestion of the court, which
> >>> >> had rejected the transport department's plan to hire RITES for
> >>> >> the study. Incidentally, RITES in a 2004 study of transport
> >>> >> solutions for Delhi had recommended 34 BRT corridors.
> >>> >> Preparation of the CRRI report, which is based not only on a
> >>> >> week-long experimental trial run but also on a series of field
> >>> >> surveys, culminated with a simulation exercise. The simulation
> >>> >> was of the traffic scenario on the 5.8km stretch in 2015 with
> >>> >> and without BRT, keeping the existing traffic volume as the base,
factoring in an annual increase in traffic of 5-7%.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The study found that doing away with BRT would result in a
> >>> >> decrease of 48% in travel time, and a substantial 61% decrease
> >>> >> in delay on the stretch. Compare this to the option of
> >>> >> continuing with BRT, which would result in a further increase
> >>> >> in travel time of 13% in
> >>> >> 2015 as well as an increase of 15% in delays on the corridor.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Sources said the surveys undertaken ? including user
> >>> >> perception, occupancy studies, pedestrian studies, passenger
> >>> >> flows and saturation flow studies ? show that BRT is not
> >>> >> working at its optimum at present. Said a transport department
> >>> >> official, "There is no denying that there are traffic issues on
> >>> >> the stretch. Unlike the Ahmedabad BRT, the Delhi BRT is after all an
open corridor."
> >>> >>
> >>> >> It's a point that the CRRI report has also underlined. It
> >>> >> observes that the proportion of cars is almost 1.5 times that
> >>> >> of Ahmedabad on the motor vehicle lane of Delhi BRT, which
> >>> >> contributes to the lower journey speeds. This, says the report,
> >>> >> is because the "width of the available MV lane is only 7-8m in
> >>> >> either direction of travel". This width is less than the 10m
> >>> >> width available for each direction of travel before BRT was conceived.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The report adds: "Since the Ahmedabad BRTS is a closed system,
> >>> >> the commercial travel speeds are much higher. The bus
> >>> >> composition is about 3% of total traffic in both cases. The
> >>> >> observed average speed of buses on Ahmedabad BRT section varies
> >>> >> between 22-25kmph (CEPT
> >>> >> Ahmedabad) which is much higher than that of Delhi BRTS -
> >>> >> 13-15kmph)."
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The last fact seems to have been completely overlooked by Delhi
> >>> >> government, which has been citing the success of the Ahmedabad
> >>> >> BRT to continue with its floundering experiment.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> ------------------------------**--------------------------
> >>> >> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> >>> >> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:**
> >>> ijjtzwbu_ss<
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> ==============================**==============================*
> >>> >> *==== SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of
> >>> >> people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a
> >>> >> focus on developing countries (the 'Global South').
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------**--------------------------
> >>> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> >>>
> http://www.google.com/coop/**cse?cx=014715651517519735401:**ijjtzwbu_s
> s<
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss>
> >>>
> >>> ==============================**==============================**==
> >>> == SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of
> >>> people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus
> >>> on developing
> countries
> >>> (the 'Global South').
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
> countries (the 'Global South').
>



--
Vissu

Support Akshaya patra: Unlimited food for education (
http://www.akshayapatra.org/)
Every small contribution makes a difference.

Not meaning to talk all the time about the same subject, but our position
(my position) is that if we wisely  base all aspects of our
transport/mobility system investments and policies on the single concept of
EQUITY, just about all the injustices and stupidities (and heresies -- I
liked that a lot Alok) wash right out of the system.  ( A bit on that in
process at http://equitytransport.wordpress.com/.)

Madhav and others,

I could not agree more. Bearing in mind that economics is in fact a branch
of moral philosophy (True for Adam Smith and true too for us today if you
think about it), in situations like this where some folks and schools have
run amuck with unthoughtout mechanistic notions that confuse economics with
a sort of indifferent plumbing, it is always a good idea to look around and
try to figure out what really is going on.

So when you talk about Chambers ("putting the last first") and Gandhi, let
me add to your pantheon the great democrat Victor Hugo who put it more of
less like this (my translation and memory): We must learn to replace the
notion of charity with a far better one, solidarity.

The point in all this being that if we get our ethics right, we are going to
be far less likely to run into these silly and oh so harmful "traps of
technicity gone berserk").

Now back to EQUITY!

Eric Britton




-----Original Message-----
From: Madhav Badami, Prof. [mailto:madhav.g.badami@...]
Sent: Thursday, 26 July, 2012 19:14
To: FEKBRITTON
Subject: RE: the single concept of EQUITY

Eric,

I agree. If our fundamental objectives in public policy are just and
equitable, and we put the last first, to paraphrase Robert Chambers, and
give voice to the voiceless, including the environment, all else follows, as
the night the day. As Mahatma Gandhi -- sadly forgotten in the land of his
birth -- said, it is futile to dream up systems (and may I say, analytical
approaches) so perfect that no one will need to be good. This is precisely
why I said the fault is not in our analytical approaches, but in ourselves;
and that transport policy, like all public policy (whether related to urban
transport or public sanitation in India or health care in the USA), is
fundamentally about ethics and politics, and only then about science,
technology, and economics.

Madhav

************************************************************************

"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." -- George
Orwell

Madhav G. Badami, PhD
School of Urban Planning and McGill School of Environment McGill University

Macdonald-Harrington Building
815 Sherbrooke Street West
Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada

Phone: 514-398-3183 (Work)
Fax: 514-398-8376; 514-398-1643
URLs: www.mcgill.ca/urbanplanning
www.mcgill.ca/mse
e-mail: madhav.badami@...
________________________________________
From: FEKBRITTON [fekbritton@...]
Sent: 26 July 2012 12:53
To: Madhav Badami, Prof.; 'Anjali Mahendra'; 'Alok Jain'
Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com; NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com;
'Sustainable Transport in the south'
Subject: the single concept of EQUITY

Not meaning to talk all the time about the same subject, but our position
(my position) is that if we wisely  base all aspects of our
transport/mobility system investments and policies on the single concept of
EQUITY, just about all the injustices and stupidities (and heresies -- I
liked that a lot Alok) wash right out of the system.  ( A bit on that in
process at http://equitytransport.wordpress.com/.)

Sorry, I remain unconvinced that ridesharing can play a major role in solving
our transport problems.

Paul says that a full car is as energy efficient as a bus with 40% occupancy.
However this only yields real energy savings if as ridesharing develops the
number of buses is reduced to compensate. And then how will the remaining bus
passengers travel ? Can ridesharing really cater for every single person who now
goes by bus, as opposed to those who are making regular journeys to/from work or
who can plan their journeys sufficiently far in advance to enable them to ring
up for transport ?

Even for regular journeys, can a non car owner take up a job entailing a commute
that is unsuitable for conventional public transport on the basis that he/she
will be able to find someone to share with ?

Is it possible that ridesharing will actually have a negative effect by
encouraging people to stick with their cars even for journeys that are short
enough to walk or cycle or where public transport is adequate ?

Ridesharing can certainly bring some benefits, but I think it is inherently
unsuitable to form a major part of a transport solution.

  Simon Norton

Ridesharing (car- and vanpooling, http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm ) is
very efficient for commutes to dispersed origins and destinations. Vanpools
in particular are very resource efficient (money, fuel and road space)
because they do not require a paid driver or an empty backhaul.

For example, it would be far more efficient to organize vanpool services
from a suburban location to a central worksite, or for off-peak commuting to
a hospital, than to run conventional bus services that have low load
factors.

However, ridesharing can only serve a limited portion of trips: regularly
scheduled commutes. Most rideshare programs require participants to commit
to a regular schedule, such as every weekday or Tuesdays and Thursday. As a
result, conventional bus services can serve a wider variety of trips
(non-commute and occasional trips) which are not effectively served by
ridesharing.


Sincerely,
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman@...
facebook.com/todd.litman
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"


-----Original Message-----
From: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Simon Norton
Sent: July-21-12 8:39 AM
To: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com
Subject: WorldTransport Forum ridesharing

Sorry, I remain unconvinced that ridesharing can play a major role in
solving our transport problems.

Paul says that a full car is as energy efficient as a bus with 40%
occupancy.
However this only yields real energy savings if as ridesharing develops the
number of buses is reduced to compensate. And then how will the remaining
bus passengers travel ? Can ridesharing really cater for every single person
who now goes by bus, as opposed to those who are making regular journeys
to/from work or who can plan their journeys sufficiently far in advance to
enable them to ring up for transport ?

Even for regular journeys, can a non car owner take up a job entailing a
commute that is unsuitable for conventional public transport on the basis
that he/she will be able to find someone to share with ?

Is it possible that ridesharing will actually have a negative effect by
encouraging people to stick with their cars even for journeys that are short
enough to walk or cycle or where public transport is adequate ?

Ridesharing can certainly bring some benefits, but I think it is inherently
unsuitable to form a major part of a transport solution.

  Simon Norton