Wednesday, December 22, 2004, Paris, France, Europe

 

Dear Sustainable World Colleagues,

 

I intend to post the following, or some version of it, tomorrow to the Principal Voices team -- http://www.principalvoices.com -- with whom we now appear to have found an effective communications channel in the person of  Stan Stalnaker of Fortune. As you will possibly note, it is along the lines of a ‘gate crash’ as suggested by the indomitable Dave Wetzel of Transport for London.

 

If you have any thoughts or suggestions to modify or improve on this, I would be most grateful to receive them at your first convenience.  I have tried hard to be a good representative for what I believe to be our shared philosophy, and as you will note I have put myself further as our ‘voice’, which may or my not be the best idea.  I am as always open to better ones.

 

You know, it is my personal philosophy that occasions like this do not pass twice, so when they come up we must reach out and seize them. And so it is here.

 

Your call.

 

Salamaat, Shalom, Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth,

 

Eric Britton

 

Reminder: About Principal Voices:  Principal Voices - www.principalvoices.com -  is an international project aimed at provoking discussion on some of the more compelling challenges confronting our world today. Over the next 12 months TIME, FORTUNE and CNN, in association with Shell, will be presenting a series of videos, articles and round-table discussions. Themes covered will include the environment, business innovation, economic development and transport.

 

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

 

Dear Stan,

 

I appreciate your friendly note of Mon 12/20/2004 and in particular your volunteering to serve as a channel of communication in the event that we have anything of interest to convey to those people who are making your program work. Since time is short with your January start-up date barely ten days away, I should indeed like to get the following comments and suggestions to your team without delay.

 

1.         Principal Voices Problem – The Transportation dialogue

 

In short and speaking in the name of more than one thousand professionals from more than fifty countries with a long term interest and true hands-on experience and competence in matters of transportation policy and practice internationally, I would like to draw your attention to what we regard as two significant shortcomings in your important project as currently framed.  I address you here specifically on the matter of your transportation section and would like to propose a couple of simple fixes, which I might add I have shared worth our several peer networks just to be sure that there is no major objection in principle to what follows.

 

First, you need at least one more transportation voice, possibly two, to have full and competent coverage of the field as it is now defined (we call this New Mobility, as opposed of course to old mobility, but more on that just below).  Does this imply that I think there is anything wrong with having Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan as leading voice?  Not at all. To the contrary I think it is most exciting to have him willing to join in here as a representative of contemporary thinking and expertise on one side of the sustainable transport debate – after all a truly remarkable man: “one of India's greatest civil engineers, the architect of the supposedly unbuildable Konkan Railway linking Mumbai and Mangalore, and, more recently, designer of the Delhi Metro system”. I think it is fair to say that his expertise will do honor to the primarily supply oriented, engineering, build it and they will come perspective of the transportation challenge, but that is at best only half the story.  The rest of the story is if anything in this day and age even more important, so in a moment I will get to our suggestion as to how this might be quickly remedied.

 

The second shortcoming of the current plan is your utter lack of a true feedback and open debate forum – this is definitely going to limit the profile, reach, usefulness and contribution of the final product.  (Not only that you are going to limit the newsworthiness of the whole thing, which I imagine is also a factor that need to be brought into the picture, especially given who you people are.)  True enough Time, Fortune and CNN are all three at heart basically broadcast media, and true too each is increasingly interactive – why so? because it’s cheap, can get valuable content, greater variety of views, and via its vigor and lively debate bring each of you more faithful customers.  But in this case you seem to be pretty lagged in that department, and what you present thus far is a crystal clear example of one more of those tiring ‘managed debates’ of which we have seen far too many.  We see this all the time in transport and environmental circles, and if you chose to persist in this in the end you always have a dead product… which I am sure is not what you folks want.

 

2.         Background – The missing half of the mobility story

 

While the author of your transport issues paper has made a fair stab at integrating the more complex sustainability issues in the introduction – and in particular  is to be commended for his choice of External Links which really does provide a pretty good coverage of the various and quite different points of view – the bottom line of your piece is that it is a plea for (a) more supply, (b) waiting for the right time to do better, and (c) tempering ‘calls for reason’ about not doing anything reach that might render the plight of  the hard-pressed existing suppliers of products and services any worse. But dear friends, this is only one point of view, and if you are indeed to live up to your promise of a wide international debate, you have to reach far broader than that.

 

One starting place to turn for more and better is The New Mobility Agenda and its extensive international network of practitioners and proponents.  You can find extensive background on the philosophy and accomplishments of this informal, independent but not ineffective international grouping if you go to http://newmobility.org.  You may also find good value in the handful of international ‘conversations’ about and expertise on these matters which feed into this movement: via our own New Mobility Cafe at NewMobility@yahoogroups.com, the Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia and the Pacific (SUSTRAN Network)at http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet/, the Universities' Transport Study Group. at http://www.utsg.net/, and Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, the http://www.itdp.org/

 

These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear cut, leading edge, world level state of the art, 21^st century awareness of the issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no aversion on the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding infrastructure in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I would like to say sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to better management of the infrastructure and systems we already have in place. Moreover, we tend too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the creative integration of new communications technologies into the overall systemic infrastructure, and that too might be one of the more promising avenues of the discussions and debate.

 

Bottom line: Unless you find a way to factor in not only the points of view of the people and groups who constitute this new leading edge in transport thinking and policy, you will end up with a tame kitty.  It’s that simple.

 

Now how to get the structure in shape to do this job.  Well there are a number of possibilities as you may well image, but here you have my no-wait proposal.

 

3.         Solution proposed

 

The Voices:

 

First and with characteristic modesty, I propose that you add my name as a ‘voice’  to your transportation component to ensure that the New Mobility Agenda approach is also fairly and fully represented.  My thought is that I can then act as a relay to ensure that our collective voices, principal too, are heard.  Why me? Well, because I am here, generally competent from this perspective, pretty much able to work the network that you need to bring in, and ready to do to work on this because I think it’s important.  Also since time is short, I would save you the beauty contest to find someone better.

Who else?  Well, you have three slots for the Environment and Business ‘Conversations’ and I think we should have three for our critical transportation dialogue as well. I know several dozen each of whom could do a fine job at this, but time is short so I have to work with what comes most immediately to mind in this specific context.  Here you have three eventual candidates each of whom with deep qualifications and records of accomplishment, a strong international reach, with ideas that often diverge from my own, who might do very well indeed here (maybe better than me in fact but forget I said that):

 

·        Walter Hook, who is Executive Director of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, a Non-governmental Organization dedicated to promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation policies and projects in developing countries and Central and Eastern Europe, and whom you can reach at whook@...; and/or

·         Lee Schipper, who currently is Co-Director, of the EMBARQ project of the World Resources Institute, and who has done quite a lot with your Shell sponsors (which might help ease the pain). schipper@....  Moreover since the closing transport debate is slated for Mexico City, a place where Lee works pretty extensively, it might be good to have him there to factor in his competence and presence for the physical events.  That’s schipper@...

·         Wendell Cox, a lively and informed world-level critic of what he regards as sloppy thinking and sloppier yet policy and practice, whose goal is “To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary.”

 

For an important high profile debate like this, we should be looking for both knowledge and critical differences. And a bit of courage and stating power for the long term would not help either.

 

The Debate Forum/Discussions:

 

We will be pleased to work with you to set this up in a way that will do the job. The idea is that it should be wide open, lively, well plugged in to the full range of expertise and views, and that it be well managed to stay on topic.  Also since the web technology on all this is moving along quite smartly, this could be a good occasion for us to work with your best technical people to find a really strong, readable, appealing way to handle this.

 

Other Technologies to integrate into the debate and exchange process.

 

• Have a look at http://newmobilitypartners.org and see if any of the dialoguing and conferencing options set out there might be put to good use in this context.  It is worth at least a thought.

 

4.         Why is the transportation sector a particularly important one in this context?

 

Before leaving you on this, I would like to share the following reflection with about yet one more reason why the transport sector is well chosen in this broader context of the Voices program. Recall that their raison d’etre is: “… to explore the key issues, offering their ideas and opinions on how to meet the challenges facing the planet as we move forward into the 21st Century”.  Hmm, fair enough but if that’s the case in this world of many problems why select transport as one of the four areas to be queried.  Here are what I believe to be the very strong reasons justifying this choice:

 

·         Because the sector is ubiquitous, a major building block of our daily lives no matter where we live, and because – and this may possibly give you pause – BECAUSE IT IS SUCH AN EASY ONE TO DEAL WITH.

·         The truth is that the main shortcoming of our existing policies and practices is one of a failure of imagination and leadership. It is not a matter of $$ nor lack of technological or organizational competence, it is above all that we have locked ourselves into a labyrinth of patterns and traps which are impeding the kinds of adjustments that we could be making in order to make very large improvements and differences.

·         Because of its extreme level of inter-dependency – well more than half of the decisions and adjustments that need to be made to move ahead boldly in this agenda, are altogether outside of the traditional technical, jurisdictional and engineering focus of the transport sector. (Yet another good reason why we must make sure that the Voices transportation panel represents this full spectrum and does not fall into the old mobility trap of looking for transportation solutions in bits of hardware or physical infrastructure.)

·         Because once we have found the imagination and courage to solve these after all relatively easy problems, we will have learned how to organize ourselves for problem solving in many other much harder challenges: a planet that is quite literally away day by day, international migration, terrorism, youth disaffection, aging populations, the restructuring of our educational systems, social justice, the failures of the international community, and the long list goes on.  

 

So if we can somehow get together solve these relatively easy problems of our sector, we will have found new ways to organize ourselves, new confidence in our collective abilities to make a difference.

 

*     *     *

 

There you have it Principal Voice friends. We invite you to respond to this and work with us, because we think it is important.  And because if you truly believe in sustainable development and social justice, it’s just the right thing to do.

 

Best,

 

Eric Britton

 

Convener, The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org

Free video/voice conferencing at http://newmobilitypartners.org 

 

The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at http://ecoplan.org

Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara          75006 Paris, France

E: postmaster@...          T: +331 4326 1323 

--- Outgoing mail certified Virus Free.  Checked by Norton Anti-Virus

 

The Commons Open Society Sustainability Initiative: Seeking out and supporting new sustainability concepts for business, entrepreneurs, activists, community groups, and government; a thorn in the side of hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our joint efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just society.

 

 

 

 

 

 Wednesday, December 22, 2004, Paris, France, Europe

 

In addition to several much appreciated private letters of cautious encouragement on this proposed initiative of 21 Dec, I have received in the last day the following two mailings from proponents of advanced transportation technologies, in a phrase free standing new systems based on “new surface transport infrastructure”.  I would like to comment briefly because I believe this is one of the central pillars that we have to deal with one way or another as we make our important decisions about the future of the sector.

 

Personally I have a great weakness for these proposals and the engineering technologies that they bring to the fore. On a number of occasions during my career I have carried out pretty extensive international surveys looking at the category in general and more specifically things like PRT, GRT, DRT, ITT, ATT, monorails, skycabs by many names, maglev, air cushion vehicles, accelerating moving sidewalks, pneumatic tube transport, and the long list goes on. But as my respected colleague and a central force in this movement, Jerry Schneider, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering and Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington (see below) has said on numerous occasions: “The problem is implementing it." 

 

That’s it and from the horse’s mouth! To whit my regretful conclusion as a hands-on advisor of policy: given the immediate needs of sustainability and our societies, we have to put this on the back burner for now and concentrate on what we can do with the infrastructure we have.  Sad and possibly even narrow conclusion that it may seem.  Fortunately however, there is a huge amount that we can in fact achieve working within the broad envelope of the infrastructure we have in hand, so to my mind the challenge is to get on with that task.

 

Mr. Daryl Oster, an active proponent of “ETT” and "space travel on earth", for his part goes quite a bit further than I do in his criticism of the way in which the Voices  people have set out to organize their initiative: starting with a rather unjust hit on the qualifications of the respected Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan to be one of the Voices.  I could not agree less. The object of any truly creative dialogue, at least as I understand it, is to trot out a wide range of views and perspectives, and indeed it would be a major error if we packed the jury in any way. Not only is Mr. Sreedharan a person of real accomplishment in our sector, but also by the way if you Google “Sreedharan  + “transport OR transportation” you get no less than 2830 call-ups this morning. So we can put that one to rest, eh? ;-)

 

That said Mr. Oster does propose a candidate with international credentials who might indeed make another interesting apex for a debate triangle, Wendell Cox of The Public Purpose (“To facilitate the ideal of government as the servant of the people by identifying and implementing strategies to achieve public purposes at a cost that is no higher than necessary).  Fine idea Daryl.  I will add him to our short list, not least because of his rigor, persistence, international reach, at times surprising flexibility -- and the fact that at least half the time I for one do not agree with him.  Which of course is the stuff of a good debate.

 

So there we have it for today.  I will let this cook for another 24 hours before dispatching to our contacts there – so there is still time for you to share both your criticisms, ideas and even encouragement if there is any of that in your end year larder.  It’s their party of course, but perhaps they will open it up a bit to ensure that it is fully informed, lively, varied and creative – the stuff of a really successful party.

 

Salamaat, Shalom, Merry Christmas, and Peace on Earth,

 

Eric Britton

 

PS. You may want to check out the latest bulletin of the ITDP at http://www.itdp.org/. Talk about new transportation ideas and on street progress.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Schneider [mailto:jbs@...]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:48 PM
To: eric.britton@...
Subject: Re: [sustran] Draft proposal to Principal Voices team - For comment

 

At 09:18 AM 12/21/04 -0800, you wrote:

 

>snip ------------

>These fora and the individuals and groups behind them offer a clear cut,

>leading edge, world level state of the art, 21st century awareness of the

>issues and the full range of solutions -- and while there is no aversion on

>the part of most of us to building new systems and expanding infrastructure

>in specific cases, we tend to be far more reserved and I would like to say

>sophisticated, and indeed practical, when it comes to better management of

>the infrastructure and systems we already have in place. Moreover, we tend

>too to be rather ambitious when it comes to the creative integration of new

>communications technologies into the overall systemic infrastructure, and

>that too might be one of the more promising avenues of the discussions and

>debate.

 

One wonders what "new systems" you might have in mind? You are welcome to

add my ITT website to your list of promising avenues for discussion.

 

   Best regards,

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@... [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org@...] On Behalf Of Daryl Oster
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 6:46 AM
To: principalvoices@...; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Cc: policy@...
Subject: [sustran] principal voices

 

To Whom It May Concern:

 

According to your "principal voices" website, the principal voices are

"globally-renowned experts".  If this is true, why is it that a Google

search for Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan (the principal voice for transportation)

turns up ZERO hits?  If you are looking for an expert try the Google search:

 

"Jerry Schneider" +transportation

 

This will turn up over 800 hits leading to Transportation Professor

(retired) Jerry Schneider.  Dr. Schneider is likely the most renowned expert

on leading edge transportation alternatives. 

 

Another Google search:

 

"Wendell Cox" +transportation

 

This search will turn up 11,000 hits on this transportation expert. Why not

ask either of these experts to debate with Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan?

 

If this is really a debate, why are the public questions limited to 4, and

why is there no criteria on selection? It appears to that the principal

voices debates could likely be a showcase for a hidden agenda that will

after the fact be claimed to have been an internationally recognized debate.

 

 

Daryl Oster

(c) 2004  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"

e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks

of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact:    et3@... ,

www.et3.com  POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310

Oops. Good. I got your message(s). 

 

Therefore, I will be adding the following names as you have suggested to the PV shortlist, each with a few judicious lines to help orient them and hopefully allow them to sort things out for themselves.

 

• Derek Scrafton, Adelaide

• Michael Meyer, Atlanta

• Mikel Murga, Bilbao

• Wendell Cox, Belleville, Illinois

• Enrique Peñalosa, Bogota

• Martin Strid, Borlange

• Robin Chase, Boston

• Jan Gehl, Copenhagen

• Phil Goodwin, Exeter

• Yngve Westerlund, Gothenburg

• John Whitelegg, Lancaster

• Dave Wetzel, London

• Robert Poole, Los Angeles

• Dinish, Mohan, New Delhi

• Michael A. Replogle, New York

• Peter Wiederkehr, OECD

• Corinne Lepage, Paris

• Denis Baupin, Paris

• Per Homann Jespersen, Roskilde, DK

• Jerry Schneider, Seattle

• Karl Fjellstrom, Surabaya

• Peter Newman, Sydney

• Jane Jacobs, Toronto

• Sue Zielinski, Toronto

• Todd Litman, Victoria

• Ken Orski, Washington, DC

• Rudolf Petersen, Wuppertal

 

 

Oh dear yes, I realize that (a) this is starting to be unwieldy, but we can leave the sorting to them once they have the full list in front of them. And almost for sure I have missed out on your favorite candidate (maybe you?), but you still can get them on board if you get back to me before the end of the day.   As you can see I am trying to do this too fast, but the clock is ticking.  That said, this gives them quite a fair choice of backgrounds and approaches, right to left, narrow to broad, engineering to public policy, -- which is what we need to bring into this debate -- but I would very much hope that political astuteness and tangible on street accomplishment will be high on their selection criteria.

 

Last chance to come in with your recommendations on this.

 

Eric Britton

 

PS. And yes, it is not only fairer like this, but much more interesting and useful.  I think what they really should consider doing is to create the three Voices, and then have an ‘invisible college’ which brings together whoever of this list might wish to pitch in and at most a handful of others.  Now THAT would be really interesting.  And useful.

 

 

 

 

Saturday, December 25, 2004, Paris, France, Europe

 

Dear Brendan, Carlos, Craig, Dave, Eric, Kirk, Mikel, Peter, Preston, Sujit, Todd, Vittal and others of you who were so kind as to get in touch with your ideas and reactions:

 

Thanks for those excellent words and suggestions of yours. They have struck home and have my full attention (as I hope you will see here). In the meantime, here is my next-stage though still provisional working “shortâ€� list for the proposed Principal Voices “Sustainable Transportation Invisible Collegeâ€� (yes, I know, awful phrase and I shall have to do better).  A few quick words of introduction before we get to the list itself:

 

Who are these people? No more no less than the hundred or so individuals on this planet who in my view are among the leading Voices of the kind of transportation that is the most important of all, sustainable transportation.  This approach to understanding and deciding about transportation is altogether on another plane from the old supply-oriented approach that has long been the dominant mode of thinking, policy and investment in the past.  It is the next step in a cumulative long run process of intellectual, economic, social, environmental and political maturity: the world transport policy and practice of the 21^st century.  If I had to turn the leading edge of transportation policy and decision making over to anyone, it would be to these people and their international colleagues, collaborators and network in turn.   

 

·        The objective in this specific case is to see what we can do to create a much-needed balancing “Voiceâ€� for the transportation component of the potentially important Principal Voices project over 2005: a sort of ‘invisible college’ of knowledgeable, world level proponents of sustainable transport (or New Mobility if you like).     

·         This panel does however, at least I hope, have a very definite bent – which is to sustainable development and social justice – and sustainable development by the way is not something that we can put on the back burner and wait for another day

·         Each of these people is a considerable personality in her/his own right, highly respected, known for the quality and independence of their views, and their brains, energy, accomplishments, long term commitment and ethics.

·         They have very different backgrounds, experience, areas of expertise, and at times even visions of their sector and the future. To this extent they complement and enhance each other by their very differentness.

·         These people understand that the task of making their voices heard is not an easy one, and that success depends on their ability to deal with the challenges.  They are accustomed to arguing their case in the face of considerable opposition and indifference, but they also are for the most part world level experts in listening (not always a strong point in a sector long dominated by people who had decided what was going to be best for the others).

·         Each fully understands the full remit and complexity of the sector, and the fact that policies there must stretch far beyond the usual transport remit.

·         They provide between them coverage of and sensitivity to the full reach of the complex interface between transport and its greater context.  Important since well more than half the decisions and actions that need to be motivated to move toward a better transportation system come in fact from outside the traditional transport nexus.

·         Here by way of quick example are some of the fields they bring into the decision nexus, in addition to the more conventional transportation, engineering, planning, etc. skills: Land use planning, electronic substitutes for physical movement, human powered transport, public space management, access for E&H, transport/environment interface, behavioral psychology, public administration, economics, law, policing, new techniques of micro-modeling, public outreach, genuinely participatory planning, much more emphasis on the interface with mobile telephony, new media, and the list goes on.

·         The international coverage is exemplary.

·         There are a fair number of young people – but we can try to do better.

·         Another thing they have in common, a word that we do not hear all that often in the traditional transportation decision dialogues, is compassion.  Important word.

·         In some cases these individuals do have an institutional affiliation, but what we have seen in virtually all cases, these particular people have meticulously preserved their independent point of view and are given over to plain speaking and not varnishing or projection of a specific interest or point of view.  In short, they are thoroughly ethical.

·         By way of quick reminder, here is what Principal Voices say about themselves: www.principalvoices.com -  is an international project aimed at provoking discussion on some of the more compelling challenges confronting our world today. Over the next 12 months TIME, FORTUNE and CNN, in association with Shell, will be presenting a series of videos, articles and round-table discussions. Themes covered will include the environment, business innovation, economic development and transport.

·         Further background on our proposed reshaping (gate crash) of this project is being drafted and will be available shortly.  (Draft notes follow below which are intended shortly to provide a fuller view of what we have in mind here.)

·         At the outset I had been targeting a considerably shorter list, but as a result of the feedback received in the last days from our lists and as the concept of what we perhaps should be targeting to do in this case, I became aware that it was going to be necessary to reach out in order to make sure that the full complexity and variety of the challenges of sustainable transport are properly covered. In the event, I see this as a dynamic, ever evolving group.

·        We have made a special effort to secure a much higher proportion of female members than is normally encountered in transport circles (notoriously male dominated... and that is a good part of their problem).

·         I have decided (unless pushed to the contrary) to omit from this list all people with strong bureaucratic, institutional and economic ties and interests, and specifically proponents of unproven technologies and major infrastructure developments that are not fully and assiduously cross-checked with the full range of sustainability criteria).

·         I intend to suggest that they invite the WBCSD “Sustainable Mobility’ team to come in as the third major voice/vision of the sector.  This means they can cover the interests of the auto and transportation industry, very long term stuff, big projects and their list goes on.

·         And by the way, I do not as yet have permissions to use most of these names.  If you are on the list and agree to participate in principal (participation being always a matter of your personal convenience with no requirements other than to indicate your interest to look in from time to time and if the circumstances move you to pitch in with comments and suggestions).

 

Here’s the latest cut of my working list for your comment and suggestions.

 

·         A. Ables, Bangkok

·         Ayad Altaai, Baghdad

·         Oscar Aguilar Juárez, Zapopan, Jalisco

·        Paul A. Barter, Singapore

·         Denis Baupin, Paris

·         Margaret Bell, Leeds

·         Reinie Biesenbach, Pretoria

·         Donald Brackenbush, Los Angeles

·         Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa

·         Eric Bruun, Philadpelhpia

·         Enrique Calderon, Barcelona

·         Sally Campbell, Eveleigh

·         Carl Cederschiold, Stockholm

·         Robert Cervero, Berkeley

·         Phil Charles, Brisbane

·         Robin Chase, Boston

·         Carlos Cordero Velásquez, Lima

·         Al Cormier, Mississauga

·         Wendell Cox, Belleville ????

·         Philippe Crist, Saint Germain en Laye

·         Ranjith de Silva, Colombo

·         Carlos Dora, Rome

·         Bernard Fautrier, Monaco

·         Anwar Fazal, Kuala Lumpur

·         Maria Josefina Figueroa, Roskilde

·         Duarte de Souza Rosa Filho, Porto Alegre

·         Brendan Finn, Singapore

·         Karl Fjellstrom, Surabaya

·         Rossella Forenza, Potenza

·         Jan Gehl, Copenhagen

·         Michael Glotz-Richter, Bremen

·         Phil Goodwin, Exeter

·         Ingibjorg Guolaugsdottir, Reykjavik

·         Peter Hall, Berkeley

·         Sylvia Harms, Dubendorf

·         Roger Higman, London

·         John. Holtzclaw, San Francisco

·         Nguyen Trong Thong, Hanoi

·         Ursula Huws, Analytica

·         Taiichi Inoue, Tokyo

·         Virgil Ioanid, Bucarest

·         Jane Jacobs, Toronto

·         Jiri Jiracek, Prague

·         Dave Holladay, Glasgow

·         Per Homann Jespersen, Roskilde

·         Charles Kunaka, Harare

·         Richard Katzev, Portland

·         Isam Kaysi, Beirut

·         Fred Kent, NYC

·         Jeff Kenworthy, Perth

·         Gadi Kfir, Tel Aviv

·         Adam Kowalewski, Warsaw

·         Stefan Langeveld, Amsterdam

·         Agnes Lehuen, Le Vesinet

·         Corinne Lepage, Paris

·         Graham Lightfoot, Scariff

·         Todd Litman, Victoria

·         Stefan Lorentzson, Gothenburg

·         Harun al-Rasyid Sorah Lubis, Bandung

·         Kenneth Orski, Washington, DC

·         Dojie Manahan, Quezon City

·         Naoko Matsumoto, Kanagawa　

·         Suzanne May, London

·         Segundo Medína Hernández, Havana

·         Michael Meyer, Atlanta

·         Nobuo Mishima, Kyoto

·         Dinish Mohan, New Delhi

·         Mikel Murga, Bilbao

·         Peter Newman, Sydney

·         Simon Norton, Cambridge

·         Margaret O'Mahony, Dublin

·         Richard Ongjerth, Budapest

·         Carlos F. Pardo, Bogota

·         Sujit Patwardhan, Pune

·         Enrique Peñalosa, Bogota

·         Maria Elvira Perez, Colombia

·         Rudolf Petersen, Wuppertal

·         Stephen Plowden, London

·         Robert Poole, Los Angeles

·         Danijel Rebolj , Maribor

·         Ernst Reichenbach, Katmandu

·         Michael A. Replogle, New York

·         Gabriel Roth, Chevy Chase

·         Preston Schiller, Bellingham

·         Bodo Schwieger, Berlin

·         Derek Scrafton, Adelaide

·         Dimitris Sermpis, Athens

·         Leena Silfverberg, Helsinki

·         Robert Smith, Dorset

·         Ivan Stanic, Ljubljana

·         Linda Steg, Groningen

·         Martin Strid, Borlange

·         Craig Townsend, Montréal

·         Robert Stussi, Lisbon

·         Robert Thaler, Vienna

·         Tony Verelst, Zonhoven

·         Vukan Vuchic, Philadelphia

·         Conrad Wagner, Stans

·         Bernie Wagenblast, Paramus

·         Yngve Westerlund, Gothenburg

·         Dave Wetzel, London

·         John Whitelegg, Lancaster

·         Johnny Widen, Lulea

·         Peter Wiederkehr, Hamburg

·         Roelof Wittink, Utrecht

·         Kerry Wood, Wellington

·         Guiping Xiao, Beijing

·         Muhammad Younus, Karachi

·         Christopher Zegras, Cambridge

·         Sue Zielinski, Toronto

 

 

 

Draft notes to be incorporated into final piece:

 

 

This will be a controlled debate and sometimes our chair (that’s me until we find someone better… which should not be hard) will cut off speakers, presenters who in his humble views are taking up too much of our valuable time and wondering a bit to far afield from our bottom line.

Informed, caring, Disputatious, , respectful (even when it hurts)

  

Why not include organizations such as the various concerned units of the EC, UITP, APTA, World Bank, UN and the list goes on and on as well as our outstanding individuals – well because of the kinds of divided minds and responsibilities that inevitably occur when anyone has to keep weighing their personal/professional views on the one hand and what the mother organization might have in mind or have to worry about.  So we are sticking to individuals in this college.

 

Out: anything that can be covered by WBCSAD, unproven systems that require large investments and new infrastructure development

 

All have extensive international experience – especially US and UK, Sweden, Germany and a few others in which there are more than one person cited.

 

You may wish to note Geographic coverage to date: Here is a first indication by city name (roughly 90 thus far): Adelaide, Athens, Atlanta, Bangkok, Barcelona, Beijing, Beirut, Belleville, Bellingham, Berkeley, Berlin, Bilbao, Bogota, Borlange, Boston, Bremen, Brisbane, Bucharest, Budapest, Cambridge, Chevy Chase, Colombia, Colombo, Copenhagen, Dorset, Dubendorf, Dublin, Eveleigh, Exeter, Gothenburg, Groningen, Hanoi, Harare, Havana, Helsinki, Kanagawa　, Karachi, Katmandu, Kuala Lumpur, Kyoto, Lancaster, Le Vesinet, Leeds, Lima, Lisbonne, Ljubljana, London, Los Angeles, Lulea, Maribor, Mississauga, Monaco, Montréal, New Delhi, New York, Hamburg, Ottawa, Paramus, Paris, Perth, Philadelphia, Portland, Porto Alegre, Potenza, Prague, Pretoria, Pune, Quezon City, Reykjavik, Rome, Roskilde, San Francisco, Scariff, Singapore, Stans, Stockholm, Surabaya, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, Toronto, Utrecht, Victoria, Vienna, Warsaw, Washington D.C., Wellington, Wuppertal, Zapopan/Jalisco, Zonhoven

 

Sunday, December 26, 2004, Paris, France, Europe

 

Many of you know Peter Wiederkehr, the man who for years has been the principal force behind the ETS (Environmentally Sustainable Transportation) project of the OECD Environment Directorate, an approach which he is now hoping to extend to the developing countries as well.  Two days ago he was kind enough to come over to have lunch and share his views on our nascent New Mobility 20/20 Emergency Initiative, and in the process he talked about what he viewed as the realities and forces that in fact underpin whatever it is we decide to collectively do in the transport sector or any other.

 

I was fascinated and impressed. So I asked Peter if he would not mind writing it down in note form, so that I could post it to our new “A day at the office” gizmo that you will find on the New Mobility Agenda site (a sort of rough compendium that attempts to seize and share some of the  most interesting of the many interesting things that pass though here each day) .. to which he kindly said yes.  The attached is the result of his kind efforts and I find that it is sufficiently challenging, fundamental and important that you too would want to have a look.

 

As you will see in his cover note to me just below, Peter welcomes comments and challenges, so let me get out of the way now and leave it now to Peter, and to you.

 

Eric Britton

 

Note: I find this particularly timely in the context of our collective attempt to see what we might do together possibly to reshape some elements of the Principal Voices program as it attempts to deal with a sector which we of course know rather well.

 

 

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

 

Hi Eric, Please find below the amended text for your daily log.

 

Thank you for challenging me and I look forward to your reaction. Please feel free to edit, if needed.

 

Thank you. Peter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Peter Wiederkehr;  12, square Gabriel Fauré;  75017 Paris

Tel./fax: +33 1 46 22 03 46 ;  mobile: +33 6 30 15 70 40
email:   peter.wiederkehr@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

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

 

I am taking up your challenge to write down the few ideas on what I think would be needed for the future in terms of human qualities individually as well as collectively to make the new mobility agenda work. This is very much in line with what we had kept in mind in the EST project, where we continuously insisted in our discussions and proposals to preserve a human face for the future of transportation and not just the realization of a perfect and smoothly functioning system, but in fact a complex mechanically organised mobility life.

 

What I am going to develop is neither original nor revolutionary, as it is inspired from many thinkers present and past, based on my cultural, educational and ethical background - a very personal synopsis of a few decades of errors and struggle with life and destiny.

 

Of course, this shouldn’t be understood and is clearly not my intention that the following ideas should take the form of any sort of declaration of principles or societal goals (we have seen the many of them, which had more than doubtful impacts and primarily remained paper with little if at all relevance of the day-to-day behaviour and actions), quite the contrary, I rather think that this could be a starting point of a discussion for rethinking future needs, our approaches towards them and how we could apply it to influence that mobility agenda.

 

Before I will develop these ideas, let me make a preliminary remark on the premises that I am starting from, as I think this is important, since the non-articulation of these premises is one of the main sources of misunderstanding among people. If we would be aware of this fact, we could avoid many conflicts and increase understanding and tolerance.

 

To the premises: I think a modern and future oriented view of the world has to get rid of some old-fashioned, outdated and false concepts, in particular concerning the very nature of us as human beings. We ought to understand and take into account that, despite any other declarations from powerful institutions, the human being is a threefold entity that is simultaneously physical (the body), emotional (the soul) and spiritual (the mind). There are numerous facts that underpin this statement and even the latest research proves this, although largely ignored or wrongly communicated in the mainstream media channels (yet, there are some films that project these findings with a surprisingly clear message).

 

Thus, I believe that we are neither only a physical body with its basic needs, capacities and limits, nor an urge-driven greedy beast that so many commercials are trying to make us believe nor an invisible spirit hovering over and above the lowlands of darkness and misery, but we, as human beings, are all the three-in-one, interacting, interfering and influencing one another. Recognising this fact of a threefold entity with different requirements and capacities for each of his parts would bring clarity in how we think, talk and act, and thus help to understand of what is going on in the world with us, the persons surrounding us, and possibly our own destiny and those of these people and our time. This view of the human being as a both spiritual and physical entity has serious consequences on what we are going to project, propose and actually do and how we do it, as each part claims its recognition and thus, the need for our self to reconcile them by conscious action.

 

Our approaches will entirely depend on these premises:

 

1)     If for instance we are convinced that the human being is primarily a physical entity with some emotional annex then we look for maximizing and facilitating the fulfillment of the physical needs, primarily through technological means to make life easier and people “happier” (yet many surveys showed that children of lower social classes experience the feeling of happiness more often than children of wealthier classes – how comes? and what was it again that triggered the student revolt in the late sixties?).

 

2)     If we are of the opinion that the human being is basically influenced or even driven by emotional factors than the emphasis is put on trying to comfort people by controlling the emotional sphere and influence it accordingly through different stimuli to achieve a high level of pleasure and so- called satisfaction (e.g. by providing specific devices to deliver all kinds of drugs, painkillers, psycho-pharmaceuticals and tranquillizers of all kinds aimed at mitigating the impacts of the more than visible ugly face of modern life and the society at large.

 

3)     If the prevailing view is that this is all wrong and the human being is primarily a spiritual entity incarnated in a body (there are still some parts of the world that share this conviction), the physical body is considered just a painful appendix or annoying hindrance to the actions and requirements of the mind and consequently, the body and soul will have to be ignored and subjected to the toughest constraints and sufferings so that it is completely subordinated to the mind. This extreme representation will lead to ignorance of our senses and neglect of the wonderful physical world, and ultimately ending in degradation and cultural decay.

 

Thus, it is obvious that these different views of the world have much influence on our behaviour and are supported, underpinned and projected by the many of proponents in each category with specialists and authorities (who in many circumstance know more than their scholars) that exercise their power and influence with strong voices and impressive means. Yet, I don’t think that the problem is primarily in these single-sided views rather than using it in an unconscious way in their undertakings. I think that if people would be aware of this and recognised it when dealing and interacting with each other, it would help resolve many problems and completely blocked situations. Thus, we might be well advised to observe this in our in individual and collective endeavors.

 

It is therefore my conviction that the view of us as human being as a threefold entity is capable of providing more balanced approaches and solutions of our problems (at least as a possibility), but has of course its own difficulties and challenges, as this entity is living and the interactions are dynamic; that means, they change over the time of the day, the months and years of our life; they might have fundamentally changed after several decades (the physical appearance provides testimony of the actions exercised upon it). Of course, this has broader ramifications on the view of the world, its course, etc. which would have to be discussed, but go beyond the scope of these initial comments.

 

On the basis of the considerations so far, let’s look at some of the human qualities desperately needed and have the power of making progress towards a more human society and world.

 

• Qualities that would be a pre-requisite for making real progress in any undertaking may include: showing interest and understanding; being concerned, showing compassion and empathy for people and life in general, being committed and reliable; trustworthy and truthful; defend individual freedom and diversity of opinions, but also show humor and tolerance, and above all be patient and endure on action taken, and finally, being aware and raise self-consciousness.

 

Note that to all of these qualities would make sense for doing good business, figure in almost all humanitarian charters, but are quite absent in the actually prevailing motives and behaviours in today’s business world. Of course, there are noticeable exceptions.

 

Basically, we would be looking for a fully conscious and responsibly acting individual.  

 

This is quite in contrast to the always heard call for everything to be smaller, faster and cheaper – certainly, the individual is too complex, too slow, too expensive (thus, the attempt to replace it by machines). But the solutions have to have dimensions that we as individuals can manage (too small is not accessible either is too big; or too fast or complex exceeds our capacity to follow it with our mind and body; thus, it get’s out of our hands and finally, cheaper is an illusion, as there are enormous hidden social costs (externalities!). What will be required is the right measure, the human measure, and of course, everybody is called to determine this for himself. Lest there be no doubt: the human body is the perfect, sensitive physical apparatus that exists and we far from any understanding of its processes: striking examples of the wonders of our body are in the news almost every day.

 

Thus, we would need creativity, courage and endurance to implement some of the new ideas, but also tolerance, respect and civism, and finally self-organising activities to use efficiently scarce resources.

 

Our general ideal would be to give more than we take (if applied in general we would all gain enormously), be something for someone rather than to have it or him/her; i.e., to make a contribution to the world rather than just being a greedy, extremely clever consumer taking the resources wherever they are. What is this contribution like? What is its nature? What its magnitude? Who can do it? Who will take the lead? Who follows?  It will need a lot of education and good examples; there are many, but largely unknown, ignored or belittled.

 

Where could we get some guidance from? Maybe from the three principles or ideals that were advocated during the French Revolution: freedom, equality, fraternity. Are they of any use or guidance in our endeavors? Maybe this is too big of a complex of issues in this initial discussion, as this would lead us into a general analysis of current society and social systems. I would prefer to develop this on another occasion. I think these ideals could be useful to have them in the back of our minds when we examine the positive potential of a future activity.

 

To conclude these preliminary comments with a view to our new mobility agenda:

 

There are striking examples that work and deliver impressive results in terms of efficient resource use, economic savings, individual gains and social benefits. Just take one example: integrated mobility services combining public transport and individual car use (I would call them PTCarPlus) or any combined transport chain management for freight. A brief review of these initiatives shows that the above mentioned qualities are key ingredients to make them work, and at first was a strong concern about the present situation and its failures and the search for new, unconventional solutions.

The personal qualities are becoming more critical as the service content of a product becomes more important. It is no longer the product and its performance that matters, the service itself is the product and thus the individual persons matter at the first place.

 

Most of these initiatives work a small scale, where individual qualities have a great impact, corrective measures can easily applied and problems solved. To make them work at larger scale, the group possessing these qualities has to become larger, but there might be a limit in size in order to keep it working (remember the right measure). Thus, the term is decentralization of initiatives and competences, while communicating through networking including social gatherings to exchange ideas and experience (“every meeting is a transformation” is a saying from the Indians at the Canadian West coast, north of Vancouver); and building friendship. We should certainly work on a new meeting (conference?) culture.

 

Such exchanges will be excellent opportunities to discuss initiatives, learn from them, create and encourage new ones that try new ways for solving problems, including those related to our ever increasing mobility demands. The experience from promising practical examples will be of great value as it will motivate people in their own endeavors. The analysis of all aspects of the initiative, in technical/scientific, social and economic terms is important, but more important is to draw conclusions from them and agree on specific actions.

 

In any case, it would be useful to think about mobility systems that can function at an oil price of even more than 100 dollars per barrel of oil….Don’t you think so?. Encouraging the further development of integrated mobility services is just one example to exercise our ability towards a sustainable transport future.

 

So far for today….

 

I look forward to your reaction, Eric.

 

Best wishes,

Peter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Peter Wiederkehr;  12, square Gabriel Fauré;  75017 Paris

Tel./fax: +33 1 46 22 03 46 ;  mobile: +33 6 30 15 70 40
email:   peter.wiederkehr@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

Wednesday, December 29, 2004, Paris, France, Europe

 

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

 

In the wake of the current tragic events in the regions affected by Tsunami, and once the terrible immediate health and basic needs of these areas and their people have started to be met, it is going to be time to take a number of decisions about rebuilding in all those impacted areas.  And at the center of this rebuilding will be the transportation sector.  Since this is the case, and since it opens up some unique opportunities in terms of sustainability, I invite us to think about it together.

 

My question to you all here is: might this be a unique opportunity for us to make the voice of sustainable transportation and social justice heard once and for all as it should be?  There are at least three things about this approach that recommend it strongly in the immediate situation and the after-math.  First, sustainability proponents are used to figuring out how to get the most mileage, the most sustainable mobility bang per buck, out of the infrastructure and related realties and constraints before them. Second, they are accustomed to dealing with the physical mobility issues and needs in a far more resource and environmentally efficient manner.  And third, the sustainability approach to defining and meeting the needs of people is based on an active citizenry, surely a precondition of the rapid progress which is needed at this time. So for all these reasons, the sustainability approach should be at the center of the transport policy and practice debate and decisions that must now follow.

 

Here’s our bottom line: The proponents of sustainable development now have a unique opportunity to influence transportation decisions and the specific hands-on programs and measure that follow, not only in the affected tragic regions but also world wide – since anything of real value that is accomplished there is going to gain world wide attention.

 

But are we as yet geared up really to make our voices heard at this time?  It is my view that despite the growing body of expertise and accomplishment, the proponents of sustainable transportation or new mobility are still very much a minority and until now not able to get in there and really change the problematique and the practices when it comes to investing money and making the big decisions which shape the system.

 

In this context, I would like to propose here that those of you who have not as yet had an opportunity to look over our proposal for sustainable transportation as a “Third Voice� in the coming high profile international project, might wish to check out the following latest draft of the proposal in process – with a view to seeing if anything here can be used or built on to create the higher profile ‘voice’ that is going to be needed in the months and several years immediately ahead to make the wise decisions that are going to be essential if the rebuilding efforts are to be accomplished with maximum speed and best overall fit into the communities and people directly affected.

 

To conclude: It may well be that my proposal that follows here is not the best way for us to join voices to see what can be done now to influence these important decisions that are going to be make in our beloved sector. No problem.  Toss it out the window, and come in here with your suggestions.  The issues are so very important, the opportunity so unique,  and the decision window likely to be open for such a short period, that we really need to seize this opportunity to be every bit as smart and responsible as we can be.

 

I hope that this will set off better thoughts and a course of action that mobilizes as many of us as possible.

 

Eric Britton

 

 

 

 

“Principal Voices�- Sustainable Transportation as a Third Voice

 

Principal Voices 2005: The immediate objective of this cooperative sustainability initiative is to see what we can do to create and make heard a much-needed balancing “Voiceâ€� for the transportation component of the potentially important Principal Voices (www.PrincipalVoices.com) project over 2005 though the participation of an ‘invisible college’ of knowledgeable, independent, world level proponents of sustainable transport in all its many aspects (or New Mobility if you like). By way of quick reminder, here is what the sponsors say about themselves: “Principal Voices is an international project aimed at provoking discussion on some of the more compelling challenges confronting our world today. Over the next 12 months TIME, FORTUNE and CNN, in association with Shell, will be presenting a series of videos, articles and round-table discussions. Themes covered will include the environment, business innovation, economic development and transport.     

 

Three Voice Proposal: We are proposing to work with this international forum to add a Third Voice in the year-long discussions, balancing in our view . . .

(1)   The long established defining Voice of transportation expertise in design, engineering, construction, operation, finance, etc., that has essentially dominated and defined the transportation systems of the 20^th century and still remains the main operational paradigm in most places (and in any event a critical central component of the next generation transportation paradigm that must be able to call in these skills and experience). This Voice is at present most ably represented by Mr. Ellatuvalapil Sreedharan one of India's greatest civil engineers, the architect of the supposedly unbuildable Konkan Railway linking Mumbai and Mangalore, and, more recently, designer of the Delhi Metro system (See http://www.principalvoices.com/voices/elattuvalapil-sreedharan-bio.html for more)

(2)   A parallel but in many ways separate but powerful in its own right financial, institutional, political, and industrial lobby “Voiceâ€�, a good example of which can be seen with the WBCSD’s 2004 “Meeting the Challenges to Sustainabilityâ€� report (see http://www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/general/wbcsd.htm for report and some context) that has been actively supported by this currently formidable element of the transportation establishment.  It is our view that a lively, open, high profile public dialogue between these three rather contrasting Voices could be a major accomplishment of the sponsors.

 

Third Voice? Who are these people? No more no less than the hundred-plus individuals and independent committed groups who in my experience are among the leading proponents of the kind of transportation that is the most important of all for out planet and our times: sustainable transportation.  This approach to understanding and deciding about mobility matters is altogether on another plane from the older supply-oriented, specific, circumscribed problem solving approach that has long been the dominant mode of thinking, policy and investment in the past, a time incidentally when the ‘problematique’ of transportation was vastly different from that which we face today (See Todd Litman’s recent "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be" at http://www.vtpi.org/future.pdf for a good overview on this).  This new and far broader approach is the next step in a cumulative long run process of intellectual, economic, social, environmental and political evolution: the world transport policy and practice paradigm of the 21^st century.  If I had to turn the leading edge of transportation policy and decision making over to anyone, it would be to these people and their international colleagues, collaborators and networks in turn. And that of course in parallel with the technical and other proven skills and virtuosity of our first Voice representatives.  

 

The Third Voice List in Process: Here’s the latest cut of our wide open working list for your comment and suggestions - see below for further background and suggestions concerning the further development of this important list.  (Incidentally if you wish to know more about any of them until full profiles become available in each case, a visit to Google will serve you well in almost all cases.)

 

·         A. Ables, Bangkok, Thailand

·         Alan AtKisson, Stockholm, Sweden

·         Ayad Altaai, Baghdad, Iraq

·         Oscar Aguilar Juárez, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico

·         Paul A. Barter, Sustran, Singapore

·         Denis Baupin, City of Paris, France

·         Margaret Bell, UTSG, Leeds, UK

·         Reinie Biesenbach, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research/ Global Research Alliance (GRA), Pretoria, South Africa

·         Donald Brackenbush, Los Angeles, CA

·         Christ Bradshaw, Ottawa, Canada

·         Eric Bruun, Philadelphia, PA

·         Enrique Calderon, Barcelona, Spain

·         Sally Campbell, Eveleigh, Australia

·         Carl Cederschiold, Former mayor of Stockholm, Sweden

·         Robert Cervero, Berkeley, CA

·         Phil Charles, Brisbane, Australia

·         Robin Chase, Boston, MA

·         Carlos Cordero Velásquez, Lima, Peru

·         Al Cormier, Mississauga, Canada

·         Wendell Cox, St. Louis, Mo.

·         Philippe Crist, Saint Germain en Laye, France

·         Ranjith de Silva, Colombo, Ceylon

·         Carlos Dora, Rome, Italy

·         Bernard Fautrier, Monaco

·         Anwar Fazal, Kuala Lumpur, Maylasia

·         Maria Josefina Figueroa, Roskilde, Denmark

·         Duarte de Souza Rosa Filho, Porto Alegre, Brazil

·         Brendan Finn, Singapore

·         Priyanthi Fernando, Executive Secretary, International Forum for Rural Transport Development (IFRTD).

·         Karl Fjellstrom, Surabaya, Indonesia

·         Rossella Forenza, Potenza, Italy

·         Jan Gehl, Copenhagen, Denmark

·         Michael Glotz-Richter, Bremen, Germany

·         Phil Goodwin, Exeter, UK

·         Ingibjorg Guolaugsdottir, Reykjavik, Iceland

·         Peter Hall, Berkeley, USA

·         Sylvia Harms, Dubendorf, Switzerland

·         Roger Higman, Friends of the Earth, London, UK

·         John. Holtzclaw, Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA

·         Walter Hook, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York

·         Nguyen Trong Thong, Hanoi, Viet Nam

·         Ursula Huws, Analytica, UK

·         Taiichi Inoue, Tokyo, Japan

·         Virgil Ioanid, Bucarest, Romania

·         Jane Jacobs, Toronto, Canada

·         Jiri Jiracek, Prague, Czech Republic

·         Dave Holladay, Glasgow, Scotland

·         Per Homann Jespersen, Roskilde, Denmark

• Sharif A Kafi, Dhaka, Bangladesh

·         Richard Katzev, Portland

·         Isam Kaysi, Beirut

·         Fred Kent, Partners for Public Spaces, NYC

·         Jeff Kenworthy, Perth, Australia

·         Gadi Kfir, Tel Aviv, Israel

·         Adam Kowalewski, Warsaw, Poland

·         Charles Kunaka, Harare

·         Stefan Langeveld, Amsterdam, Netherlands

·         Agnes Lehuen, Le Vesinet, France

·         Corinne Lepage, Paris, France

·         Graham Lightfoot, Scariff, Ireland

·         Todd Litman, Victoria, Canada

·         Stefan Lorentzson, Gothenburg. Sweden

·         Harun al-Rasyid Sorah Lubis, Bandung, Indonesia

·         Kenneth Orski, Washington, DC

·         Dojie Manahan, Quezon City, Philippines

·         Naoko Matsumoto, Kanagawa, Japan　

·         Suzanne May, London, UK

·         Segundo Medína Hernández, Havana, Cuba

• Kisan Mehta, Bombay, India

·         Michael Meyer, Atlanta, GA

·         Nobuo Mishima, Kyoto, Japan

·         Dinesh Mohan, New Delhi, India

·         Mikel Murga, Bilbao, Spain

·         Peter Newman, Sydney, Australia

·         Simon Norton, Cambridge, UK

·         Margaret O'Mahony, Dublin, Ireland

·         Richard Ongjerth, Budapest, Hungary

·         Carlos F. Pardo, Bogota, Colombia

·         Sujit Patwardhan, Pune, India

·         Enrique Peñalosa, Bogota, Colombia

·         Maria Elvira Perez, Colombia

·         Rudolf Petersen, Wuppertal, Germany

·         Stephen Plowden, London, UK

·         Robert Poole, Reason Institute, Los Angeles, CA

·         Danijel Rebolj , Maribor, Slovenia

·         Ernst Reichenbach, GTZ, Katmandu

·         Michael A. Replogle, New York

·         Gabriel Roth, Chevy Chase

·         Preston Schiller, Huxley College of the Environment, Bellingham, WA

·         Lee Schipper, EMBARQ/World Resources Institute

·         Bodo Schwieger, Berlin, Germany

·         Derek Scrafton, Adelaide, Australia

·         Dimitris Sermpis, Athens, Greece

·         Leena Silfverberg, Helsinki, Finland

·         Robert Smith, Dorset, UK

·         Ivan Stanic, Ljubljana, Slovenia

·         Linda Steg, Groningen, Netherlands

·         Martin Strid, Borlange, Sweden

·         Craig Townsend, Montréal, Canada

·         Robert Stussi, Lisbon, Portugal

·         Robert Thaler, Vienna, Austria

·         Geetam Tiwari, New Delhi, India

·         Tony Verelst, Zonhoven, Belgium

·         Vukan Vuchic, Philadelphia, PA

·         Conrad Wagner, Stans, Switzerland

·         Bernie Wagenblast, Cranford, NJ

·         Yngve Westerlund, Gothenburg, Sweden

·         Dave Wetzel, London, UK

·         John Whitelegg, Lancaster, UK

·         Johnny Widen, Lulea, Sweden

·         Peter Wiederkehr, Hamburg

·         Roelof Wittink, Utrecht

·         Kerry Wood, Wellington, New Zealand

·         Guiping Xiao, Beijing. China

·         Muhammad Younus, Karachi, Pakistan

·         Christopher Zegras, Cambridge, MA

·         Sue Zielinski, Toronto, Canada

 

Note: By the way, I do not as yet have permissions to use most of these names. 

·         So if you are on the list and agree to participate in principal, please send us a quick note with your full title, contact information, etc. so that the sponsors can see just how distinguished this group is.

·         Participation, by the way, being always a matter of your personal convenience with no requirements other than to indicate your interest to look in from time to time and if the circumstances move you to pitch in with comments and suggestions.

·         Key question: Can we, together, handle such a large list and still get a meaningful “Voiceâ€�?  Answer: We have managed to do so on a number of occasions in the past with no great problems.  I am confident that we can to it now.

 

Next steps with this working list:

 

Do you have a nomination for another highly qualified authority/networker suitable and ready to help round out this fine list?

• I feel that despite the enormous quality of the group as it stands we are still a bit uncreatively short in the following areas: females, young people, people with mobility impediments, youth and school programs, and people struggling with genius and resolve with rural transport, in particular in the poorest parts of the world. 
• We also could use more “point expertiseâ€� in the following areas: local government, land use planning, road pricing and economic instruments, human powered transport, local government and decision making, public space management, access for people with mobility impediments, techniques of low cost infrastructure modification, transport/environment interface, electronic substitutes for physical movement, behavioral psychology, public administration, economics, sociology, social work, law enforcement and policing, new techniques of micro-modeling, public outreach, genuinely participatory planning, new media, and the list goes on.
• Disaster relief
• One technology based area that needs further definition and support is new forms of shared transport better adapted to the public’s demands in the 21^st century, including those which offer ‘car like’ or better mobility, with much more emphasis on the interface with mobile telephony, taxis and paratransit,
• Another importance vector to be brought in here: non-transport uses and users of the road and supporting infrastructure: peddlers, window shoppers, playing children, people meeting and talking, beggars, lonely people, street people (homeless) and once again the list goes on.
• Finally, we could use a few more mayors and local leaders, who are after all among the defining forces for decision and change in the sector.

 

How is the proposed process  going to work? (Draft notes)

 

·         Further background on our proposed collective contribution to this potentially important project is being drafted and will be available shortly.  (Draft notes follow below which are intended shortly to provide a fuller view of what we have in mind here.)

Notes on the Third Voice Panel/Nominations:

·         This panel does however, at least I hope, have a very definite common orientating – which is to sustainable development and social justice. And sustainable development, just to be sure that we are very clear on this, is not something that we can put on the back burner and wait for another day.  It’s 2005 and sustainability requires immediate, priority attention.  It is not a luxury. It is an essential and a central priority.

·         Each of these people is a considerable personality in her/his own right, highly respected, known for the quality and independence of their views, and their brains, energy, accomplishments, long term commitment and ethics.

·         They have very different backgrounds, experience, areas of expertise, and at times even visions of their sector and the future. To this extent they complement and enhance each other by their very differentness.

·         These people understand that the task of making their voices heard in a world in which old ideas and practices often continue to hold the stage is not an easy one, and that success depends on their ability to deal with the challenges.  They are accustomed to arguing their case in the face of considerable opposition and indifference, but they also are for the most part world level experts in listening (not always a strong point in a sector long dominated by people who had decided what was going to be best for the others).

·         Each fully understands the full remit and complexity of the sector, and the fact that policies there must stretch far beyond the usual transport remit.

·         They provide between them coverage of and sensitivity to the full reach of the complex interface between transport and its greater context.  Important since well more than half the decisions and actions that need to be motivated to move toward a better transportation system come in fact from outside the traditional transport nexus.

·        Tone of the exchanges: Informed, exploratory, caring, disputatious, and respectful (even when it hurts)

·         Here by way of quick example are some of the fields they bring into the decision nexus, in addition to the more conventional transportation, engineering, planning, etc. skills: Land use planning, electronic substitutes for physical movement, human powered transport, local government and decision making, public space management, access for E&H, transport/environment interface, behavioral psychology, public administration, economics, law, policing, new techniques of micro-modeling, public outreach, genuinely participatory planning, much more emphasis on the interface with mobile telephony, new media, and the list goes on.

·         The international coverage of the group is exemplary.

·        We are making a special effort to secure a much higher proportion of female members than normally encountered in transport circles (notoriously male dominated... and that is a good part of their problem).  As of end 2004 we were at about 15%. We have to do better.

·         There are a fair number of young people – but we can try to do better.

·         Another thing they have in common, a word that we do not hear all that often in the traditional transportation decision dialogues, is compassion.  Important word.

·         In some cases these individuals do have an institutional affiliation, in most cases institutions and NGOs which are well known for their independence of views. Moreover we have seen in virtually all cases over the years, these particular people have meticulously preserved their independent point of view and are given over to plain speaking and not varnishing or projection of a specific interest or point of view.  In short, they are thoroughly ethical.

·         In this context, the list is actually considerable longer than what you see here.  In the interest of economy and efficiency we have made a practice of naming just one person per group or working cluster, in the knowledge that each will in turn work to ensure the participation of the others in their grouping.

Also:

·         At the outset I had been targeting a considerably shorter list, but as a result of the feedback received in the last days from our lists and as the concept of what we perhaps should be targeting to do in this case, I became aware that it was going to be necessary to reach out in order to make sure that the full complexity and variety of the challenges of sustainable transport are properly covered. In the event, I see this as a dynamic, ever evolving group.

·         I have decided (unless pushed to the contrary) to omit from this list all people with strong bureaucratic, institutional and economic ties and interests, and specifically proponents of unproven technologies and major infrastructure developments that are not fully and assiduously cross-checked with the full range of sustainability criteria).

·                                 I intend to propose that they invite the WBCSD “Sustainable Mobility’ team – or possibly some kind of composite voice which brings together the usually well orchestrated performances of such important entrenched forces such as the automotive and energy industry, and such generally concordant groups as the IEA, ECMT, IAA, and the various well placed lobbies -- to come in as the third major voice/vision of the sector.  This means they can cover the interests of the auto and transportation industry, very long term stuff, big expensive infrastructure projects, the lurch toward things such as the hydrogen economy,  and their list goes on. 

 

 

Draft notes to be incorporated into final piece:

 

This will be a moderated debate and sometimes our chair (that’s me until we find someone better… which should not be hard) will cut off speakers, presenters who in his humble views are taking up too much of our valuable time and wondering a bit too far afield from our bottom line.

  

Why not bring in here representatives of organizations such as the various concerned units of the WBCSD, ECMT, EC, UITP, APTA, World Bank, UN ,and the list goes on and on as well as our outstanding individuals? Well because we have seen over the years how such people act in these circumstances. In truth they of the kinds of divided minds and responsibilities that inevitably occur when anyone has to keep weighing their personal/professional views on the one hand and what the mother organization might have in mind or have to worry about.  So we are sticking to individuals in this college.

 

Out: anything that can be covered by other Voices as they chose: unproven systems that require large investments and extensive, expensive and inevitably slow new infrastructure development

 

All have extensive international experience – especially US and UK, Sweden, Germany and a few others in which there are more than one person cited.

 

You may wish to note Geographic/city coverage to date: Here is a first indication by city name (roughly 90 thus far): Adelaide, Athens, Atlanta, Bangkok, Barcelona, Beijing, Beirut, Belleville, Berkeley, Berlin, Bilbao, Bogota, Borlange, Boston, Bremen, Brisbane, Bucharest, Budapest, Cambridge, Chevy Chase, Colombia, Colombo, Copenhagen, Dorset, Dubendorf, Dublin, Eveleigh, Exeter, Gothenburg, Groningen, Hanoi, Harare, Havana, Helsinki, Kanagawa　, Karachi, Katmandu, Kuala Lumpur, Kyoto, Lancaster, Le Vesinet, Leeds, Lima, Lisbonne, Ljubljana, London, Los Angeles, Lulea, Maribor, Mississauga, Monaco, Montréal, New Delhi, New York, Hamburg, Ottawa, Paramus, Paris, Perth, Philadelphia, Portland, Porto Alegre, Potenza, Prague, Pretoria, Pune, Quezon City, Reykjavik, Rome, Roskilde, Saint Louis, San Francisco, Scariff, Singapore, Stans, Stockholm, Surabaya, Sydney, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, Toronto, Utrecht, Victoria, Vienna, Warsaw, Washington D.C., Wellington, Wuppertal, Zapopan/Jalisco, Zonhoven

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Daryl Oster and Sustran- and NewMobilityCafe-members

 

The usefulness of scientific journals is sometimes discussed – someone told me that the average readership of a paper in a scientific journal is less than two (plus the referees and the editor). So getting a comment for your paper published world-wide within 24 hours of publication is really something and might indicate that World Transport Policy and Practice must be counted among the most important journals.

 

I am grateful to Mr. Oster for giving me opportunity to comment on some of the main points in his statements about our paper (http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/wtpp10.3.pdf). I agree with Mr. Oster that our indicators are not all-comprehensive and that other factors must be taken into account to find the most efficient solution (in economic and/or environmental terms) in every single case. However, there is a need for indicators, which on an aggregated scale (e.g. national, supply chain, company) measures the quantity of transport used to bring products from origin to destination, e.g. from the primary producers to the consumer. If you want to know how logistical decisions influence transport you have to have suitable measures. If you want to reduce the necessary transport and it’s impacts, you have to know where to focus. This is the scope of our paper, as it has been the focal point of several EU-projects (REDEFINE, TRILOG, SULOGTRA), which we have built upon.

 

The indicators proposed are biased, Mr. Oster claims, to favor ship and rail transport. He is right if you just compare the transport efficiency measure across different transport modes – it will come as no surprise for anyone that in these terms transport by ship is very efficient compared to transport by van. So we do not make this comparison, and stress that efficiency measures must be compared by transport mode. This is what is done in another paper in the same journal (Per Homann Jespersen: The transport content of products) where an example of a transport-LCA (life cycle analysis) is presented.

 

Comparing within the same transport mode is somewhat simpler. But I must disagree with Mr. Osters statement, that ‘The ratio of ton-kilometers and vehicle-kilometers is equal to vehicle capacity.’ It is, if the vehicles are always full loaded, but they are not, and one of the main issues in reducing freight transport is how to increase the vehicle utilization. For some interesting discussions and data on this, I can refer to the studies made by Prof. McKinnon and colleagues on the food supply chain in the UK (‘Analysis of Transport Efficiency in the UK Food Supply Chain - Full Report of the 2002 KPI survey’, http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/logistics/pdf/Kpi2003.pdf).

 

Other papers by my colleagues in the same issue of World Transport Policy & Practice have built on the foundation of the paper discussed here for looking at e.g. a supply chain and a piece if infrastructure. Whether we can continue to develop this approach into something fruitful depends very much on critical comments like Mr. Oster’s pointing at weaknesses and where we have to be more precise in our problem statements. We are grateful for this and hope that others will take up this good example.

 

Sincerely

 

Per Homann Jespersen

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per Homann Jespersen, Assc.Prof.

FLUX - Centre for Transport Research

Dept. of Environment, Technology and Social Studies, Roskilde University

House P7, P.O.Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

Phone +45 4674 2497  Cell phone +45 2449 4295  Fax +45 4674 3041

mailto:phj@...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: EcoPlan, Paris [mailto:eric.britton@...]
Sendt: 21. december 2004 06:55
Til: 'New Mobility Cafe [NMC]'
Cc: 'John Whitelegg'; 'Per Homann Jespersen'
Emne: "World Transport Policy & Practice" Volume 10,Number 3 - Commentary

 

We post this message here with copies to the editor of World Transport Policy and Practice  and the visiting editor of their special number, thinking that this might lead to some useful discussion?

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

 

-----Original Message-----
 On Behalf Of Daryl Oster
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 9:42 PM
To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'

 

The paper “logistics and transport a conceptual model” (in WTPP v10#3)

advocates methods that unrealistically reward trains and ships, and obscure

the advantages of other modes.

 

On the last quarter of page 9, the definition of the indicator of transport

“transport efficiency” is defined as the ratio between ton-kilometers and

vehicle-kilometers. 

 

This definition may yield efficiency indications with traditional

transportation modes like ships, trains, and trucks, however it cannot be

considered a comprehensive measure of efficiency. 

 

Efficiency has several dimensions, including: 

Infrastructure cost, Time cost, Labor cost, and Energy cost, all compared on

a ton-kilometer basis.  Also, there must be a comparison of the distance the

load travels in vehicles along the routes, compared with the straight-line

distance from origin to destination that the load is transported (distance

efficiency).

 

The ratio of ton-kilometers and vehicle-kilometers is equal to vehicle

capacity.  So the “logistics and transport a conceptual model” on pg.9

really states that efficiency scales with vehicle size.   This is only true

if there are savings in cost associated with vehicle size. 

 

There are many instances where ton-km costs do NOT scale inversely with

vehicle size:

 

*Infrastructure cost – the tooling cost for large vehicles is much greater,

and the number of vehicles produced is small, so vehicle cost per ton of

capacity scales with size.

 

*Time cost – it takes longer to assemble most general cargo loads in large

vehicles than in small vehicles, so many elements of time cost scale with

vehicle size. 

 

*Labor cost – labor savings is one of the main reasons vehicles have

traditionally been made large.  The use of automation eliminates this

advantage for large vehicles.  Large vehicles typically have the labor

disadvantage of requiring several loading and unloading and transfers, and

the need for storage while waiting for load assembly and disassembly.

 

*Energy cost – the energy efficiency advantage of using large vehicles is

mostly related to fluid dynamics.  This advantage is only achieved if the

vehicle is full, and for travel in a fluid like air or water.  There is no

advantage if viscosity effects are mitigated (as with ETT – see www.et3.com

). 

 

*The use of large vehicles usually results in a reduction of distance

efficiency compared with using small vehicles.  Large vehicles are more

constrained: large ships cannot use small channels, or harbors, increasing

the distance the load must travel, or involving transfers to other modes;

trains cannot easily cross mountains or rivers; trucks on a delivery route

increase the distance the average delivery pallet must travel from the

origin to the destination. 

 

The questions raised in the summary on page 10-11:

 

      “Is it possible to divert transport into more environmentally

friendly    directions, to create sustainable transport solutions or

even to     create sustainable supply and demand chains?

      Will it be possible to diminish the growth of transport without

conflicting with welfare goals on the macro level and thereby decouple

transport and economic growth as was the case in the 1970s in the

energy sector?

      These questions, however, require some new answers to be given,

which       means creating new knowledge around transport and its integration in

the processes of production, distribution and logistics. This paper     has

tried to move the first steps in that direction by

      presenting some frameworks of analysing the multiple relations

between     transport and logistics.”

 

Indicates the intent of the authors are noble, however the methods of

analysis indicate that either the authors have a shallow understanding of

transportation efficiency, or they have a hidden agenda of creating policy

to protect trains and ships from further innovation in transportation

efficiency promised by automation and new modes.

 

Daryl Oster

(c) 2004  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"

e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks

of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact:    et3@... ,

www.et3.com  POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310

 

 

Dear Colleaugess,

 

I write you with reference to the planned TRB session on Sunday, January 9, at 8:00 p.m to be given over to “Transportation and Logistical Challenges Associated with the Tsunami Disaster”.  (See http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=4530).

 

My question is this? Is there anyone in our groups who will be there who might be wiling to report back to us in summary as to how all this goes?  And is there anyone who will be participating and who might be intending to run with some of our ideas on injecting sustainability criteria into the first line of the new rebuilding efforts?  And if so, how might this somehow be achieved at more than the usual level of pure rhetoric (AKA the greenwash syndrome) that all too often is what we have when our important topic comes up, if at all.

 

How might we edge into this session and use it to advance our agreed agenda?

 

Since time is so short and we are so very dispersed, it would be good if the feedback on this might be addressed to both of the main fora: sustran-discuss@... and NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com.

 

Eric Britton

 

 

 

If you click  to the New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org and click A Day at the Office on the top menu, you will find this interesting essay by Peter Calthorpe which takes an architect/planner’s view of the transportation/physical development interface. Why do I bring this to your attention today?

 

Well, I think that our still forming-up world sustainable transportation community has to look for and work with allies (and opponents) wherever we can find them, and the New Urbanism community is pretty strong in parts of the States and is certainly a creative movement with many shared interests with our own.  It is my thought that if we can find some ways to put our heads together we just might end up fashioning some interesting alliances and materials for change.

 

Hence, this is to invite you to have a look and share your reactions and suggestions with us all, if possible as well copying to our long time colleague Don Brackenbush, another architect/planner with a strong transportation background who will be at the conference, on that panel, and in a good position to relay the best of our thoughts and observations on this.

 

I hope this rings a bell with at least a few of you.   2005 is going to be a big year for us and sustainable mobility, and we want to make sure that we get the momentum going for us from the very beginning,

 

Eric Britton

Normally we keep this kind of information notice in the New Mobility Café, but in this case, because it represents such an important example of the kinds of things that are needed to make sense of the New Mobility Agenda as we understand it, I am pleased to share this with our World Transport family as a whole.

 

Stay tuned for the rest (which will in fact largely come from you and your experience, knowledge and fertile minds).

 

Eric Britton

 

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

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wetzel Dave [mailto:davewetzel@...]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 6:56 PM

 

 

On Wednesday last week (5th January) I had the pleasure of visiting West

Sussex County Council's Fastway bus project.

 

This is a Public/Private Sector Partnership initiative part-funded by the UK

Government's Dept for Transport.

See: http://www.fastway.info/ <http://www.fastway.info/>

 

Cllr Lt. Col. Tex Pemberton, Conservative Councillor and West Sussex Cabinet

Member for Highways and Transport -

(for biog see:

http://was.westsussex.gov.uk/yourlocalinfoweb/viewCouncillor?query=34

<http://was.westsussex.gov.uk/yourlocalinfoweb/viewCouncillor?query=34>  )

 

took me round with his colleagues Bob Etherington (Special Projects Team

leader for West Sussex County Council), Alan Eatwell (MD Metrobus/Go-Ahead -

the operator of Fastway), David Birks (Owen Williams) and Hayley Thorne (the

Fastway team). I also met Nick Hill, the Metrobus Operations Manager and Ian

Coyle his new replacement and the many enthusiastic workers at the Metrobus

depot who operate, control and maintain the buses on a commercial basis

without subsidy.

 

I was extremely impressed with  the care which all partners (West Sussex CC;

DfT; Surrey CC; Crawley Borough Council; Reigate & Banstead District

Council; British Airways; BAA (Gatwick); Metrobus /Go-Ahead, Edmund Nuttall

Ltd, main contractor for the civil engineering and Owen Williams -

supervision) have demonstrated in pursuing this project.

 

My immediate observations:

 

1. the bus service itself, which commenced on 1st September 2003, (and now

runs around the clock), has increased frequencies to: 10 minutes daytime. 20

minutes early morning/late evening. Night (10.15pm to 4am) 30 mins.

 

2. The use of guided buses including the guide wheel being used to draw the

bus close to concrete kerbs at stops on the normal road section away from

the guided sections. (Much cheaper than providing expensive Kassel kerbs).

 

3. the 11 buses (9 Peak Vehicle Requirement) are 12m Scania Omnicity,

painted in a special Fastway livery, (a branding that is matched in the bus

shelters).           (Bus capacity 37 seated; 35 standing or slightly fewer with

up to 2 wheelchair users).

 

4. GPS used for operating traffic lights and lowering bollards in a bus-only

street to give priority to the buses.

 

5. GPS used to provide control information for the operator (with an

historical record).

6. GPS used to provide paxs with bus stop specific real-time information on

the service displayed at some bus stops (but soon to be all stops) and

available on the internet

See:  http://www.acislive.com/pages/busnet.asp?sysid=13&mapid=177&mapLevel=2

<http://www.acislive.com/pages/busnet.asp?sysid=13&mapid=177&mapLevel=2> 

so that paxs can look up the departure time of their next bus at their stop

before they  leave home or their workplace.

7. the smart use (on some sections of the route) of bus lanes, and avoidance

of traffic signal lanes, etc. including one round-about where the bus is

allowed to go straight across the central island, whilst other traffic on

the Island approach roads are held at STOP.

(Reminded me of when I trained to be a bus driver in 1964. The Instructor

told a previous trainee [honest - it wasn't me!] "to go straight over the

round-about" so he did - bumping up and down the kerbs on the central

island!).

 

8. the smart use of traffic management to divert cars away from the bus

corridor at some junctions.

 

9. the resurfacing of tarmac on concrete roads that give bus paxs a better

ride. (Also a benefit for motorists).

 

10. the use of CCTV to deter vandalism on board the bus. (No etched windows,

torn seats or graffiti). Unfortunately this did not extend to the Adshell

bus shelters which were badly vandalised and one burnt down.

 

11. the care for the environment in terms of tree planting, bulbs and

hanging flower baskets adding colour in residential areas along the route.

Over £150,000 was spent to transform the landscape on parts of the Fastway

route, with the planting of over 200 trees and 8,000 shrubs and herbaceous

plants.

 

12. the publicity literature etc. including the slogan "Fastway - the REAL

alternative to the private car"! Is excellent, spoiled only by careless

proof-reading and not using the above slogan on all literature (including

timetables), on bus stops and on the buses themselves for the motorists to

read as the bus whizzes past!

 

13. local consultation on the choice of route and regular information to

local people, via newspapers, radio and television, newsletters and

exhibitions during the construction phase to keep the public and commerce

fully informed of progress and changes to traffic during the construction

phase. Using the slogan "short-term pain for long-term gain" this effort has

maintained widespread support for Fastway even though there was extensive

disruption to traffic and inconvenience for local residents. The

construction contractor won the prestigious 'The Considerate Contractor of

the Year' national award.

 

14. the use of some landowners' land value gains ( £5m through the UK

Section 106 agreement system on development sites) to help fund the scheme.

(Of course, with a Land Value Tax on ALL sites - transport projects would

not need to rely upon the "crumbs" offered up by Section 106!).

 

15. the appointment of a "Champion" from each of the partners in the project

to ensure a sustained interest and input.

 

16. Fastway is offering a tram-like service for about 10% of the cost of a

conventional tram. (Fastway £35m compared to £350m for a comparable tram

service).

 

17. with a new "Eastern" loop through Crawley being introduced later this

year, frequencies at either end of the route will double. (i.e. 5 minute

peak daytime frequency).

 

18. All this has lead to a growth in patronage which has beaten the original

business plan and success in achieving modal shift from car to bus. The bus

service (with 300 metre stops) actually offers a faster journey than cars at

congested times.

 

Of course most of these initiatives are not new to the bus industry.

But Tex and his colleagues have motivated diverse players, obviously

employed good project management and service delivery skills, brought a lot

of good ideas together and maximised their impact on one route with a

benefit for all.

 

The speed (late 1990s to 2003) from concept to introduction is also worthy

of notice. As Tex Pemberton told a recent conference in Genoa "The time from

flash to bang is quite impressive!"

 

Congratulations Tex - and to all concerned, not least the passengers jumping

on board and the workers who built the scheme and provide a daily operation!

 

Happy New Year

Dave

Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.

Windsor House. 42-50 Victoria Street. London. SW1H 0TL. UK

Tel: 020 7941 4200

Intl Tel: +44  207 941 4200

 

 

Thursday, January 13, 2005, Paris, France, Europe

 

Thanks so much Dirk for this fine on-target comment and caution to Juan’s request for his research project.  Let me join you on this quickly if I may:

 

But before I dig in, I have in fact had a look at your personal website Juan and am much impressed with your strong technical background in transportation.  Nonetheless I will follow Dirk’s lead and give you my unvarnished views in the hope that they may somehow be of use.

 

Before we start to propose a or in our view possibly THE answer to any of the specific problems that we face in the transportation sector, it is perhaps better to get us going to make a clear and as possible wide open, non-narrowing statement of what we believe to be the problem.  I mention this not only in the case of your good question Juan, but because it is and has for about ever been indeed one of the main “deforming factors” in our transportation decision arrangements… call it “Décision précoce”.  (Note: I am hoping that we will be looking at this more closely together in our proposed transportation dialogue under the Principal Voices program shortly).

 

You probably have already run this drill yourself Juan, but let me see if I can set out the broader preparatory steps in this case as I see them.  Let’s see what we might do with this in the case of your “better and cheaper mobility alternatives for low income groups”.  That is your target right?

 

1. Certainly as part of our background we have to be sure that we fully understand the main short-comings in our target case associated with the existing own-car arrangements (which include stuff like the huge cost, direct and indirect, of car ownership and use, along with the “costs” that are implied to the extent to which any given person might wish to opt for what appear to be useful shortcuts: i.e., no insurance, inadequate maintenance, etc.)
2. So yes indeed we really to have a problem here, now what might the range of answers be -- sticking for now to stuff that relates to mobility alternatives alone, but on the understanding too that we have a mature understanding of the specifics in terms of the full access problematique of our target group.  (And in this context we also must from the beginning be sensitive to the fact that in most real world situation many of the things that need to be done to reduce or eliminate any given mobility problem in fact may lay outside of the transportation sector per so.  Something of which  we should never lose sight.)
3. Car clubs of various sorts are probably something that we might look at in any given situation, but in addition to carsharing per se as we know it, it also suggests various possibilities of ride sharing  (each of these of course bringing with them their own share of problems and limitations, but if we don’t have a careful look without having to give birth to a doctoral dissertation each time and for each choice). But there are other mobility options to which we should be giving some thought.
4. A probably doubtful solution in almost all cases that I can imagine would be the creation of a standard taxpayer-funded deficitory scheduled bus service, but that said if there happens to be something of the sort lurking around in the target area, there may be possibilities for better service levels and route adaptation (and even flexibility) without necessarily breaking the bank.
5. Other options which I for one would at least like to have a good look at would include:
1. Some form of organized hitchhiking
2. Group taxi services
3. Para-taxis (which may be more or less illegal, but then again much of the time when we want or need to break the paralysis of systemic inertia in this sector, this may be the case.  But we have to lean to come to grips with this in creative responsible ways).
4. Community transport (via local religious groupings, social agencies, neighborhood associations, and the list goes on).
5. Etc.

 

I would imagine Juan that you have already worked your way down these various hit lists before settling on the carshare option in this case, but I would like to think that this quick reminder might be useful in itself – and that it might inspire more and better from our colleagues who have a lot more hands-on knowledge than I do. However if you were to ask me point blank: do I believe that carsharing  can be made to work for low income groups?  I would have to say: might do, but we would have to be very very careful to make it work.

 

To close: If I seem to insist on this little exercise in problem setting overly, it is because it is now well known that in our sector “most of the problems we face today are someone’s old answers”.  So better that we scratch around a bit before making our implementation decisions.

 

I look forward to the comments from our other colleagues on this, and if possible Juan to our being able to follow in some efficient manner the progress of your worthy project.

 

Eric Britton

 

PS. Suppose the question were: Where best to start carsharing in Colombia?  And there I would suggest that the best target just might be not the poor but wealthier groups living in and around the larger cities. They after all are often, and despite many of their other and inevitably bad habits, the leading edge for new ways of doing things. (See if you can sell this idea to our esteemed friend and colleague Enrique Peñalosa. It will give him one more arrow in his quiver.)

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: DIRK VANDIJL [mailto:dirk.vandijl@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 9:25 AM
To: WorldCarShare@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WorldCarShare] Car Sharing for Low Income groups

 

Juan

I have no information for you, but I am faced with this question also from many local governments and I have a problem with it.

 

Car clubs were started to reduce pollution and congestion. Part of our mission (after the primary mission which is to build a sustainable, successful and profitable business) is to achieve those goals.

 

If we confuse our goals by adding making one of the most polluting forms of transport (after airplanes) available to people who otherwise would not have cars, we will only increase pollution and congestion.

 

No doubt the question of 'social inclusion' and 'work opportunities' etc then come around the corner, questions which are very important and valid. However, if a car is needed to get to work daily, then a car club is not a suitable alternative. In that case a private car in much cheaper. The car club is good for the 'occasional' journey, though what 'occasional' means each person will have to judge themselves.

 

So my conclusion is that car clubs should not be looked at as a method of giving access to cars by a group of people who would not otherwise have access to cars. It will dilute the prime objective (I think that was a Star Trek phrase) and not achieve the desired effect in other (not part of the prime objective) areas.

 

Good luck

 

Dirk

"Juan F. Ortega" <juanfortega@...> wrote:

Good evening to everybody in the World Car Share group!

 

I am doing research on Car Sharing opportunities for low income groups in the United States and I was wondering if you could give me examples of cities in the US that provide this kind of service.

 

Thanks,

 

-juan

 

Juan F. Ortega, P.E., Ph.D.

juanfortega@...

http://www.juanfer73.tk/

 

Carsharing: Sustainable transport's missing link!
Go to World CarShare: http://WorldCarShare.com
The broader issues behind carsharing? Check out the New Mobility Agenda at http://www.newmobility.org
Free video- and voice-conferencing: click http://newmobilitypartners.org

 

 

Carsharing: Sustainable transport's missing link!
Go to World CarShare: http://WorldCarShare.com
The broader issues behind carsharing? Check out the New Mobility Agenda at http://www.newmobility.org
Free video- and voice-conferencing: click http://newmobilitypartners.org

Thursday, January 13, 2005, Paris, France, Europe

 

Dear World New Mobility Colleagues,

 

In the spirit of international cooperation in support of our strongly shared concerns for advancing the New Mobility Agenda in specific ways and without further undue delay, I would like to invite you today to give serious consideration to a new software tool for communication that you probably have already heard about but only a few of us have as yet started to use. 

 

The product is Skype, and their website is www.skype.com.  Skype offers free IP telephone calls to all who are signed on to their network.  Also in its latest version it offers two new wrinkles that are of use to many of us: direct file transfer and the possibility of conference calls bringing together up to four people at the same time. Sound quality?  We find it comparable to the normal phone, and often better.  It is also – and this is indeed important for those many of us who are cash-strapped in our public interest work – free.

 

To make it work for you, you will need a recent computer, a sound card, and a minimum 33.6 Kbps modem or broadband: cable, DSL, etc. (As often on the web, faster is better, but for once it is not a barrier in this case.)  Skype works with Mac and Linux as well as Windows. For full product information and system requirements, try http://www.skype.com/products/.

 

We feel strongly enough about our international collaboration that we invite you to get in touch once you have it installed so that we can together check it out and see how it might best work for you.  My personal Skype address/number is simply ericbritton (no punctuation).  If you go today to the New Mobility Agenda site at http://newmobility.org, you will note that we have put a one-click icon for a direct Skype call to us here on the left menu.  

 

I hope that this will open up an era of closer communication and more efficient cooperation between us and all those with whom we are working and exchanging materials and cooperating internationally. In the fight for sustainable development and social justice in this world and now, we need to make use of every possible tool and advantage that we can get our hands on. (And please be assured that we have used this latest bit of technology on a daily basis for some months before proposing it to you.)

 

With all good wishes,

 

Eric Britton

 

PS. Want to take this one step further and move on to free one on one and group videoconferencing.  If so, have a look at out http://newmobilitypartners.org site and you will find out how to do this in a few minutes.

  

 

This email has just come in from our wonderful able colleauges at the International Forum for Rural Transport and Development (IFRTD), addressed to our Children on the Move program (which for the moment is sadly not nearly as active a one wouel like.  Problem of time and resources, and neither of importance nor lack of desire on our part to do this and do it well.)

 

I was sure that a number of you would wish to know about their program, and perhaps you may have some ideas or support for them as well. If so, it would be kind if you would post them both to this list and to childs-play@yahoogroups.com as well.

 

Finally, if anyone out there would like to give us a hand in getting the Children on the Move program at http://www.ecoplan.org/children/index-bis.htm into gear, that would be wonderful.  I think that we have a sound base here, but we will need tome help to build on it and make it work as well as we are managing in others of the areas of  sustainable development and social justice that we are addressing here.

 

Kind regards,

 

Eric Britton

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Priyanthi [mailto:priyanthi.fernando@...]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:18 PM
To: childs-play@...
 Subject: children on the move

 

Dear friends

 

I have just come across this website, and thought that you might be interested in an initiative that I have been really excited to be part of.  

 

Initiated by Dr Gina Porter and colleagues from the University of Durham, supported by DFID, and carried out in collaboration with the Concerned for Working Children in Bangalore, the South African National Forum Group of the IFRTD and its host organisation the CSIR and the University of Cape Coast, Ghana, the programme to improve policy on children’s mobility and access through the development of a participatory child-centred field methodology aims to empower children to collect and use information about their own transport needs.  

 

The Concerned for Working Children (CWC), who have been working with children in Karnataka for many years, demonstrated to us the importance of not just making child-friendly decisions, but actually allowing children to participate in the decisions that affect their lives.  CWC point out that this is their right, given to them by the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, to which most national governments have signed up to. CWC facilitated a workshop with 29 children from three villages in Karnataka, where, over five days, the children used their knowledge of their transport problems to develop a research framework and pilot test three tools for conducting research into the problems. 

 

These three tools, a transect walk, focus group discussions and mapping access and mobility for different children were field tested by the children in one panchayat.  CWC will continue to work with the children, and will also help colleagues in Ghana and South Africa to replicate the process.

 

• More information about the project can be obtained from Dr Gina Porter r.e.porter@...
• An overview of the workshop can also be found on www.ifrtd.org/new/news/full.php

 

I think there is an exciting opportunity for there to be a link between the Children on the Move work, and the work described above.  I am not sure how many children are actually involved in Children on the Move (I found it a little difficult to navigate the site), but there is considerable room to involve kids both from the developed and developing world in interacting through the internet and discussing their mobility problems or sharing experiences.   I am copying this to my colleagues so we can begin to move this idea forward.

 

Best wishes

 

Priyanthi

 

 

 

S

New Mobility Discussions and News – A recommendation:

 

There are at present some 350 registered members of this World Transport Forum and about three times that many who regularly check in to the New Mobility Agenda.  That said, the limitation of this @Forum is that it serves primarily for periodic announcements but is not a place where ideas and information from our members and others concerned with the sustainable transportation agenda are accessible.  We realize that you are busy and that the last thing you want to do is have your email box invaded by a surfeit of messages, but there is a good way around this which I should now like to propose to you.

 

1.      First though a quick visit to the New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org. Where you will see in the top menu an item marked The Discussions. Kindly click.

2.      There you will see a collection of some of the most useful discussions of the sustainable transportation agenda by highly knowledgeable people and groups most of whom are right in the middles of the action – policy and practice.  Of these we would draw your attention to the following which are particularly active and in our view most useful:

a.      The New Mobility Cafe

b.      Sustran - The Sustainable Transport Action Network for Asia & the Pacific

c.      The Universities' Transport Study Group Archives

d.      The Land Café

3.      And here is our proposal to you in these cases. Let’s take as example the New      Mobility Cafe where you have four main options when you sign in:

a.      Individual emails.  Send individual email messages.

b.      Daily digest.  Send many emails in one message.

c.      Special notices.  Only send me important update emails from the group moderator. No email.  I'll read the messages at the Web site.

c.(I recommend (b) or (c) – which will hold down the mail load.)

4.      That said, I also strongly recommend that you make a habit of checking in from time to time, since the discussions are often at quite a high level and not only informative but also challenging.

5.      I should mention in leaving you on this, that our sites are also quite carefully moderated to make sure that they stay on target. But you will in any event see this as you check them out in each case.

 

PS. Cross-posting.  There are times when we cross-post information to especially these four sites on a selective basis, in instances in which we judge the discussions to be too useful to take the risk of their somehow getting lost in the shuffle. (One day we shall have to figure out how to do this better.)

 

 

 

Wednesday, February 16, 2005, Paris, France, Europe

 

 Dear World Transport Colleagues,

 

Today, after the better part of a decade of very hard work on many sides, the Kyoto Treaty finally enters into effect and with it the obligation of some 140 nations on this beleaguered planet to do something about their emissions.  For the advanced industrial economies, the 1990 targets are going to be very hard to meet: but at least there is now a process in place which is starting to point the way.  In some parts of the economy.

 

However when it comes to transport in cities, there can be no grounds for optimism. To the contrary, despite the many useful point improvements  made by the leading edge cities in recent years, the trend overall  is harshly moving in the wrong direction: in each we are seeing year after year more traffic, more pollution, more accidents, more lost time, more unnecessary deficits, and more urban amenity and quality of life washed away by our aimless short-sighted policies.

 

Our challenge in brief

 

Against this background, this is an open invitation to an independent, open, world-wide  partnership, collaboration and exchange in the area of sustainable mobility.  And specifically to put before you a working outline of a proposed innovative public policy action program  in the field of city transportation improvement still in its very early stages of development, which has we sincerely believe real potential in the until now hopelessly unequal struggle to move our cites toward something much closer to sustainable mobility -- or, let us say, "Kyoto Compliance".

 

What is useful about this concept is that it is at once short term results oriented, far-reaching, affordable and realistic. No less important, it targets highly ambitious near term efficiency and visible environmental improvements without requiring massive injections of hard earned taxpayer money.  It also, with the right kind of preparatory work and support, can offer a very powerful political tool for mayors and city counsels who wish to offer a better, safer, cleaner and more affordable city to their electorate.

 

Since you are experts in all this I do not need to waste your time in trying to convince or educate you on all these details. You know them as well or better than I. But what I can draw to your attention is a reminder that we now, in fact, have over all these years of piecemeal improvements and innovations arrived at a point where we can in fact face this challenge and do something about it.  If indeed we chose to.  Which is what this letter and challenge is all about. 

 

So, under these conditions what better can those of us who care do than to put our heads together and see how we might begin to shape an action agenda and by our combined skills, contacts and resources carry out the following three step problem-solving process?

 

• Clarify in no uncertain terms the crisis before us
• Develop an action plan that will give visible short term results
• And place all this firmly in a long term strategic framework that is going to move us, move our cities to the underlying goals of sustainable development and social justice.

 

How to achieve this? Here is the core of the strategy that we now propose for your consideration,  comment, and action:

 

1. Set out clear, explicit, understandable, ambitious but safely meetable performance targets in the participating city.
2. Make sure you have total commitment of local leaders from the top -- at least to take this through the first Blueprint Go/No-Go phase.
3. And a very broad base of public support and participation.
4. Highly committed local implementation partners with the technical virtuosity needed to get the fine detail planned carefully, executed and then consistently fine-tuned -- and the open community spirit and orientation needed to get the job done.

 

We are confident that once a leading group of pioneer cities show the way, this approach will catch the attention of many others and will spread like wild fire.  Why? Well, because it will have very high public visibility and because too over these last several decades we have built up our shared knowledge and competence at the leading edge to make it work.  All that is needed now is a this first set of high visibility, high impact programs: the rest will follow.

 

All that of course is still entirely abstract. Let's see if we can be more focused and useful on this.

 

Next steps

 

We today, with this letter and the website behind it at  http://newmobilitypartners.org, invite you and the more than one thousand international figures with whom we have been in contact on these matters over the years, to consider how you might get involved in or support the Kyoto New Mobility Challenge Program. Specifically, we invite you to go through your files and contacts to see if there is some city or existing program that you know well that might be brought into the challenge as set out here.  You will find fairly copious background information on how this works in the Challenge site, starting with the Executive Summary that directly follows this letter of invitation.

 

The idea behind this Call is to see what we can now get together to create a voluntary international program to encourage and support cities world wide to take major and massive focused programs to reduce traffic and air pollution in their area in a very short period of time.  The proposal involves a two step process.

 

The immediate first step, once we have organized ourselves and got our base materials and arguments fully in order, will be to find a certain number of cities and teams ready to show the way by preparing intensive local reviews to determine what can be done across the transportation sector and in the surrounding areas to achieve in the city  major targeted reductions (we have chosen the target of 20% for examination in each case) within a very short (20 month?) period (after all this is an emergency).  We feel that with strong local support at all levels and the necessary know-how, each city team will be able to come up with a strong local program that is going to succeed in showing the way.  Step 2 is the actual program, which will take place within the twenty month (or whatever you decide) target period.

 

What you can do to help

 

Why are we contacting you on this today? Well, because we know from years of international experience that programs such as this require highly qualified, energetic, well placed local partners who know the issues and the trade-offs well and have the technical capacities and networks to tailor and make this approach work in their city.  

At the end of the day this approach is as much political as it is technical, and its pioneering nature makes it rather more than just one more transportation project. And it is for this reason that we have set out to look for partners capable of facing these challenges in a first handful of cities ready to move ahead to prove these ideas for themselves and as pioneers showing the way to sustainable mobility when it is needed (i.e., now!).

 

If you are one of our informed international colleagues or someone who knows these issues and the problems behind them, you can quite possibly do a great deal.  And while you will of course have your own ideas on all this, here is a very short list to get you going:

 

1. Associate your group, program: Let the world know that you think these issues require high visibility and attention. Add you name and link to our listing here.

 

2. Comment on the draft materials & program:   Intensive group discussions are going to be a big help in firming up this program, and in setting the stage for the specific pioneering city projects that now need to follow.

 

3. Identify cities, allies:  You may  already have some ideas about next steps, cities, projects, allies -- and we very much hope that you will share these with the groups, since any specific initiatives that you might take will serve to encourage others to get actively involved on their side.

 

4. Pass on the message: Please pass on this letter and related materials to your colleagues, contacts and discussion groups working in these areas. We are going to need to get the news out to many thousands of our colleagues and connections world wide if this is to gain the necessary momentum and support.

 

5. Get the media involved: And let the print and electronic media know as well about what we are trying to do and where to come for more. High international visibility is part of the toolkit we need to put in place to make this work. (Click here for latest Media Release).

 

There are many ways now for you to get in touch, including one Click for direct browser contact which will link you directly via your browser to our offices here.  Try it.  Or come to Paris and let's talk about it.  Click here  for details on organizing your trip and stay here.  Even without leaving the city we can show you some of the interesting things that are going on here . . . including not least the results of our mayor's commitment to cut private car use in the city by a steady 3% per year. Come and have a look at how this is working.  It may give you some ideas.

 

With all good wishes and kindest thanks for your collaboration,

 

Eric Britton

New Mobility Agenda

 

 

Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara          75006 Paris, France

E: postmaster@...          T: +331 4326 1323 

 

 

 

Sunday, February 20, 2005, Paris, France, Europe

 

Dear Friends,

 

May we ask your help in seeing to it that this release gets maximum exposure.

 

And I very much hope, as always, that you will chose to get involved. There is plenty to keep all hands busy.

 

As you will note, for full background all you have to do is turn to the New Mobility Agenda site at http://newmobility.org. It’s all there.

 

With kindest thanks and best wishes,

 

Eric Britton

Media Release. Paris, 20 February 2005                 Media Release. Paris, 20 February 2005

 

Empty Chair in Kyoto

Open Society program sets out to help world cities become "Kyoto Compliant”

 

Source: The New Mobility Agenda at http://newmobility.org, Paris, France

 

Kyoto Treaty Needs Help in Cities

 

After years of hard work on many sides, the Kyoto Protocols finally entered into effect on 16^th February.  And with it the obligation of 140 nations to do something about their greenhouse gas emissions.  For the advanced industrial economies, the targets are going to be extremely hard to meet. But at least there is now a process in place which is starting to point the way.  In some parts of the economy that is.

 

However when it comes to transport in cities, there can be no grounds for optimism.  140 countries may have signed the Treaty, but not one city even initialed it. Transportation was the empty chair in Kyoto.

 

How is that possible? It is well known that transport accounts for as much as 50%, and often more, of all air pollution being cranked out in our cities.  However, and despite the many useful improvements made in recent years a number of leading innovating cities and projects, all the trends are harshly moving in the wrong direction. Each year and in every single city on the planet we are seeing more traffic, more lost time, more pollution, more accidents, more unnecessary deficits, and more urban amenity and quality of life washed away by aimless short-sighted policies.

 

How can we move ahead on the challenges of Kyoto unless we figure out how to fill the missing chair?

 

Kyoto Cities Challenge

 

On the day the Kyoto Protocols entered into international law, the New Mobility Agenda, a  Paris-based NGO,  together with a world wide network of distinguished colleagues and organizations, announced a voluntary program and strategy to address this alarming oversight: the Kyoto Cities Challenge.

 

The groundwork for this cooperative effort had been carefully laid over the last months with a series of internet discussions and in-person and videoconference exchanges which in time reached out to more than a thousand international experts and leading groups in the fields that need to be part of the solution.  The new program has been carefully shaped through these expert exchanges and is now ready to go.

 

The Challenge goals are exceptionally ambitious -- as indeed  they must be under the circumstances. It not only invites each participating city to set exceptionally tough performance targets for itself to move toward “Kyoto Compliance”, but also to do this in terms of a very tight timetable of less than two years.

 

One variant receiving especially close attention is the 20/20 Challenge.  The goal is to create a high profile city-wide action program to achieve some form of 20% reduction in a target period of 20 months. The question comes up of course “20% of what”.  And this is something that needs to be sorted out by the planning teams in each city. Thus one city might target a 20% reduction of CO2 emissions, another of some indicator of motorized traffic, a third perhaps some pubic health metric such as pulmonary infections. But in each case these need to be set carefully during the intense three month blueprint stage.

 

The international expert group is confident that this challenge can be met, but is well aware that this is going to require exceptionally strong local leadership, considerable technical virtuosity and a broad base of public support if it is to work   The cooperating experts are confident that once a first group of pioneer cities show the way, this approach will capture the attention of many others and spread like wildfire.  What is needed now is that first set of high visibility, high impact city programs. The rest will follow.

 

And in this way we will have at last filled that empty chair in Kyoto.               

*** END 613 WORDS END ***

 

For more information on the Kyoto Cities Challenge go to http://newmobility.org.

Contact: Eric Britton

The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative at http://ecoplan.org

Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara          75006 Paris, France

E: postmaster@...          T: +331 4326 1323 

Skype: ericbritton                       IP video: SightSpeed: ericbritton