Warning: The new introductory page contains a very large image file (almost 1 mo.) so if you do not have a high speed link you will probably not want to try it this time.

 

Dear Friends,

 

I would like to invite you, to encourage you to click to the New Mobility Agenda at http://www.newmobility.org this morning to take a look at an image which just may help us somehow in mobilizing our thoughts and actions in the tough up hill struggle to more sustainable cities and better and fairer transportation arrangements.

 

You may also have food for thought if you go to the bottom of the second short introductory page and have a look at the real time situation on the streets there.

 

It is our intention to keep this image here for the next week or so and invite discussion, of what you see here and the thoughts that it inspires.

 

Best/eric britton

 

Sneak Preview of CONTESTED STREETS: Breaking NYC Gridlock

Special Sneak Preview: Wednesday, November 17th, 7-9pm at the New 42nd Street Studios (229 W. 42nd Street between 7th and 8th Avenues). Duration: 56 minutes. The event will include a discussion with the filmmakers and stars. Light refreshments provided thanks to Savoy, Florent and Brooklyn Brewery. Tickets are $10 at the door. Limited seating is available, RSVPs strongly encouraged. Contested Streets is a T.A. produced, Cicala Filmworks made documentary that explores the rich diversity of New York City street life before the introduction of automobiles and shows how New York can follow the example of other modern cities that have reclaimed their streets as vibrant public spaces. Contested Streets features new footage of reclaimed streets in London, Paris and Copenhagen and interviews with New York savvy notables such as Ken Jackson, Mike Wallace, Bob Kiley, Eric Britton, Jan Gehl, Majora Carter, Kathryn Wylde, Enrique Penalosa, James Howard Kunstler and many more. View a 5 minute trailer of the film. RSVP now

 

 

The Institute for Transport Studies (ITS) invites applications for a
Marie Curie PhD Fellowship.

This prestigious Fellowship is in the field of Transport Policy,
Economics and Appraisal and is available to EU (excluding UK) domiciled applicants only.

Funded by the Marie Curie Early Stage Training (EST) programme, the
award  covers fees and provides generous maintenance/travel allowances (approx.

36,500-40,000 Euros per annum subject in part to individual
circumstances) for 3 years full-time PhD study.

The deadline for application is 5 December 2005 (to commence no later
than 1 February 2006).

For further details including eligibility criteria and application
process please visit: http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/restrain/curie.php
Alternatively please email Jo Davies: jdavies@...

Institute for Transport Studies
University of Leeds, LS2 9JT
Tel: + 44 (0)113 343 5326 / Fax: + 44 (0)113 343 5334
 

Volume 11, Number 2 (2005) of "World Transport Policy & Practice", a quarterly journal edited by Professor John Whitelegg, is available free of charge as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file at http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/WTPPhome.html

 

Contents of Volume 11, Number 2, 2005:

 

·         Opinion Piece: Roadwars ­ or: Go Extreme. Go MK.

BY Joachim Allgaier

 

·         An analysis of the regulation & transportation of hazardous waste in the United States of America

BY Vereda Johnson King & Basil Coley

 

·         Urban road infrastructure policies in Africa: the importance of mainstreaming pedestrian infrastructure and traffic calming facilities

BY Marius de Langen

 

 

*****

 

World Transport Policy & Practice

ISSN 1352-7614

Eco-Logica Ltd.,  53 Derwent Road,  LANCASTER,  LA1 3ES.  U.K.

telephone +44 1524 63175

Editor: Professor John Whitelegg <John.Whitelegg@...>

Business Manager: Pascal Desmond <pascaldesmond@...>

 

http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/WTPPhome.html

 

 

Dear New Mobility Folk,

 

Just in case you are not already fully up to scratch on this, I would like to remind you of the importance of carsharing as a motor (one of many but certainly a far from trivial one) for changing habits and ways of viewing and using the transportation systems of our cities. TO that end – and while I normally try to keep these various focus programs generally apart so as to avoid overload – I am attaching a trio of resources that you might wish to have at least a quick look at. Between them and our website at http://worldcarshare.com – and its many extensions – you will quickly be up to date on what it going on here.

 

The thing that puts off many who are on the looking for magic bullet solutions to the problems of our cities, is that the answers lay in understanding and anticipating and providing for a very large number of mainly quite small things. One of them is carsharing, which any city can make an informed decision about AND have a first rate detailed implementation and business plan for less than the price of a single bus.

 

Try it. You’ll like it.

 

Eric Britton

 

As a corrective to this complacent piece, cafe society may like to have the views on walking and cycling in London of the distinguished Danish architect and planner Jan Gehl, whose report  for TfL "Towards a fine city for people" was published in June 2004. This is what he told Ken Worpole a few months later. It is an extract from the December issue of Prospect.

"To be honest, I was shocked. To my mind, London comes only after Moscow in the contempt the city planners show for pedestrians. You never see any children on London streets - what have you done with them all?" He told me that he had considered making the provocative recommendation that cycling should be banned in London - principally for the reason that so little care had been given to providing any kind of infrastructure to support the safety of cyclists.

Wetzel Dave wrote:

> 'What has the congestion charge and associated measures done for
> cyclists?'
>
>
> David Dansky
>
> London Cyclist magazine
>
> October 2005
>
>
>
> The Congestion Charge, together with some other measures, has created
> better
> conditions for cycling so encouraging more cyclists.
>
>
>
>
> Ever more reasons to ride
>
>
> We have all been marvelling at the huge recent uptake in cycling this
> summer. In fact there has been a steady uptake of cycling over the past 5
> years in London. This hasn't been a smooth increase in cycle use, but
> rather
> a series of surges that have occurred for various reasons such as the
> recent
> bombing, causing fear and chaos around public transport; a spate of fine
> weather; a co-ordinated advertising campaign by Transport for London (TfL)
> and more.  A huge surge in the number of cycling trips coincided with
> introduction of the congestion charge on 7th February 2003 (and the timely
> release of the LCC cycle maps).
>
>
>
> Road charging made economic sense. The demand for road space in central
> London was so much greater than supply. Economic theory dictates that once
> the price goes up demand goes down, and so it did. An end to gridlock and
> the crazy fuming mess, and in its place more space, more buses and more
> cyclists.
>
>
>
> Why did so many people choose to dig their bike out of the shed? Well it
> became more pleasant and easier to cycle, even on the main roads.
> Fewer cars
> meant an increase of average speed (from under 7mph to around 10mph)
> and an
> improved traffic flow. Cyclists are able to cycle more often in the stream
> of traffic so cycling faster and getting fitter, they are less in conflict
> with drivers and expected to be on the road. The investment in buses and
> enforcement of bus lanes make it easier to cycle on them.   And some bus
> drivers have begun to better appreciate the needs of cyclists. As the
> number
> of cyclists increases, more drivers are also cyclists and so give cyclists
> more space. The snowball had started rolling. More cyclists beget more
> cyclists.
>
>
>
>
> London Cyclists are lucky
>
>
> Despite the continual gripes on the letters page of this magazine and the
> LCC forums about drivers' behaviour, we ain't never had it so good. I have
> travelled around the UK training cycling instructors. Conditions in London
> are so much better than in many other towns.
>
>
>
>
> So what about some people's fears prior to the Charge?
>
>
> 'Drivers will drive much faster and more people will be involved in
> crashes.' Unfortunately there are crashes however, recent statistics show
> that there has been no increase in the number of cyclists killed or
> seriously injured since the Charge.
>
>
>
> 'There would be increased congestion on the edge of the zone'. This is
> hardly discernible. The effect of the charge extends beyond the zone since
> fewer people use their car for their daily commute.
>
>
>
> (It was also suggested that poor people would suffer
> disproportionately but
> poor people mainly used public transport before the charge and this has
> improved.)
>
>
>
>
> Other measures
>
>
> It's not solely the congestion charge that has contributed to this cycling
> surge. We have seen that the Mayor really does want people out of their
> cars. TfL has introduced measures such as 20 mph Zones, the London Cycling
> Design Standards (that prioritise joined-up routes rather than the odd bit
> of silly cycle lane), the recent TV and bus stop adverts. TfL is funding
> National Standard cycle training (enabling more people to develop the
> skills
> and confidence to ride a bike on road.)
>
>
>
>
> Looking ahead
>
>
> And what does the future hold? The extension of the zone is another
> step in
> the right direction, recognising that road pricing for cars is inevitable.
> Drivers must pay something for the damage they cause to our environment,
> their own and other people's health. I agree with Professor David Begg's*
> suggestion that the charge extends to all roads within the M25. Were
> this to
> happen more people may consider working, shopping and seeking
> entertainment
> within cycling distance of where they live, thus revitalising communities,
> high streets and improving people's general health. With the result that
> London would be more pleasant place.
>
>
>
> Let's hope that other cities around the UK learn from the example of
> London's Congestion Charge.
>

> *Director of the Centre for Transport Policy at RGU, Aberdeen and a TfL  board member.
>

> David Dansky is Staff Manager for Cycle Training UK, the UK's largest
> independent provider of on-road cycle training and cycling instructor
> training. He rides 150 miles around London each week due to work training
> and leisure. He has contributed to the development of the National
> Standards
> for cycle training and believes that the Charge has contributed greatly to
> the recent uptake of cycling by Londoners.

New Mobility/Year  Agenda - Fast 2006 Update

1. The New Mobility Agenda at http://www.newmobility.org has undergone a major overhaul. You should find it more informative, transparent and easier to find what you are looking for once there. Have a look and if it is not good/useful enough for you, let me know.
   
   
2. Cruising speed:  World Carshare, World Car Free Days , and the Agenda itself . . . are all on a roll. (As is The Commons.) Steadily improving and extending coverage, brining in new members, offering new tools, and doing their bit for sustainability. If you are following any of these, you will know about all that. But if not (yet), let us invite you in to have a look. Who knows, you may stay around for a while.
   
   
3. xTransit: Yes, again one of our strange words. But it appears to be needed to pull together all the many bits and pieces so as to provide a coherent platform for discussions and exchange on what has to be the hottest transportation topic on the Agenda: The "third way" of getting around. Getting people around in cities in road vehicles, smaller than full sized buses, driven by real human beings, dynamically shared with others, and aided by state of the art communications technologies as the only way to offer "car like" mobility in most of our 21st century cities without killing the cities.  Check it out via http://www.newmobility.org
   
   
4. Kyoto World Cities 20/20 Challenge: This perhaps most important of our collaborative projects has sat on the sidelines over these last months while we hammered away with our limited resources at other parts of The Commons, with the thought that this work on the concomitant parts of the New Mobility Agenda were going to be important raw materials for making this policy project zing. What’s missing? The link between our very real collective hands-on competence in terms of how people can get about in cities, sustainably, and all those higher visibility programs that are out there are targeting climate issues, mayors’ Kyoto initiatives (but where is the hard core of their transportation proposals), et al -- but few with the kind of transportation competence that is needed to make real progress out there on the city streets.  Can you help us make those links with these other groups and the cities themselves? So far, we have not been able to do this job.
   
   
5. United Nations Car Free Days:  This one got stuck somewhere in some office in that big building in New York. Have a look at what we propose on the site and let us know if you have any ideas for this great cause. It is too important, too good to end its life there in some drawer.  Pop in and have a look at our proposal for next steps.
   
   
6. Our Wikipedia New Mobility Projects: Promise! There is more to this than you may at first blush think. Our goal here is to stimulate our informal international expert consortium to "put our brains together", and in the process to tap our collective intelligence to build a free, high-quality, comprehensive on-line encyclopedia and get out the word that solutions are in sight. For the benefit of all in a world in which old ideas and old and bad practices die hard. (We want to help them out the door.)
   
   
7. Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks:  Sound kind of familiar. Well that in fact is almost exactly what we are here. And since that is the case, we have set out to examine this concept more closely and in public. For more on this, you are invited to turn to the new entry in Wikipedia on this, and to join in with your ideas and additions.  (It reads quite nicely with the in-process entry on Knowledge Building and Self Organization which I also invite you to have a go at.  They are all part of what we are dong here, and since we have between us some years of hands-on experience together in this, who better than we can help define the meaning of these terms in the field of policy and practice)
   
   
8. Finance:  Oops. Big problem. Big challenge. Normally I do the heavy lifting here, paying for all of this out of my consultancy earnings. But I have been spending too much time with these programs, and we need to find new ways to pay for it. Now, we are going to keep all this going one way or anther but it ain’t easy. We are not looking for your money (that would corrupt the whole concept of being ‘off the economy’ which is so central to all we do. But it would be good to have your ideas about possible foundations or other sources of support. Or your thoughts on how to integrate some parts of all this into some form of 21^st century cash machine (a la Skype, Google, who knows, but no ads).
   
   Failing any ideas on that, what you can do is to write me a brief letter with some kind of “attestation” that all this work is serving some useful purposes, at least as far as you are concerned. Than if you can properly sign it so that you are properly and impressively identified, I can then place that into our eventual applications as we start to shop around for support.

 

There we have it as this New Year opens up before us, with its challenges and its opportunities. As you may have noticed we remain entirely optimistic that we have the means to deal with these problems, and that the only thing we need to find is a bit of imagination and solidarity to put all our big brains and even bigger hearts to work.

 

 

Eric Britton

 

The New Mobility Agenda is on line at http://www.newmobility.org

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

Tel:  +331 4326 1323                                        Skype: ericbritton

E: mobility@...            Backup: fekbritton@...

 

EcoPlan International                Innovation consultancy/advisory

New Ways to Work in an Information Society: http://www.xWork.org

9440 Readcrest Drive                              Beverly Hills, CA  90210

T. +1 310 601-8468   E: eric.britton@...  Skype: xWork-on-line

 

Well, we have decided to open up a Poll on this which you will find in our New Mobility Idea factory. Here is how it looks:

Will the Stockholm Congestion Pricing succeed in getting majority public support at the time of the next summer’s referendum?

• Will succeed  
• Will fail  
• Deserves to succeed  
• Deserves to fail  
• Succeed, but only by a very small margin  
• Succeed, and with 60% or more of votes  
• Succeed, and with 70% or more of votes  
• Fail - but by a very small margin  
• Fail, and with 60% or more of votes  
• Fail, and with 70% or more of votes  

 

 

You are invited to place your vote starting right now.  We also invite commentaries here.  And now the Planet Ark story thanks to the almost Swedish Lee Schipper.

 

eb

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Schipper [mailto:schipper@...]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 11:56 AM

 FEATURE - Stockholm Residents Choke on New Congestion Charge

 

SWEDEN: January 4, 2006

 

 

STOCKHOLM - On an overcast winter morning, traffic heading into

Stockholm on the main route from the north is heavy, but it is moving -

unlike the rush-hour gridlock typical in some metropolitan centres.

 

Yet the capital of Sweden, a country known for its vast, unspoiled

natural vistas and clean air, will soon have the world's most extensive

system of traffic congestion charges.

 

A test run costing 3.8 billion crowns ($485.2 million) starts on

Tuesday and will last until July. Stockholmers will vote in September

2006 on whether to make it permanent.

 

Cameras on gantries have sprung up to record the licence numbers of

vehicles, whose owners have to pay when they enter and leave the zone.

 

Most Swedes take pride in their country's environmentalist credentials,

but this time politicians may be out of touch with public opinion in

their efforts to impose a tax on traffic.

 

The charge is part of a political deal to secure the support of the

Green Party, the smallest group represented in parliament, for Prime

Minister Goran Persson's Social Democrat minority government.

 

It is being launched despite the fact that Persson's fellow Social

Democrats on Stockholm city council pledged not to introduce such a

scheme when they fought and won local elections in 2002.

 

The Greens insist the charge is needed because of the growing volume of

traffic. "The alternative is to sit in traffic jams for the next 10

years," said Claes Roxbergh, a Green Party member of parliament and

chairman of its traffic committee.

 

Social Democrat mayor Annika Billstrom has also thrown her weight

behind the scheme, hammering home the message that traffic jams cost

society between 6 billion and 8 billion crowns a year.

 

"This is paid by you and me as consumers in shape of higher prices for

things like goods and food," she told Reuters.

 

The charge will be a maximum 60 crowns ($7.50) a day, slightly less

than London, the only other European capital with similar fees, which

charges eight pounds ($14) a day.

 

 

Talk Of The Town

 

While Stockholm's traffic problems are a far cry from those of bigger

cities such as Moscow or London, opinion polls show most Stockholmers

agree that the Greens have a point.

 

However, polls also show they are less convinced that congestion

charges are the solution. "I think it is crazy to spend so much money on

something that just won't pay off," said Stockholm resident Eva

Jeckert.

 

Christmas parties in the city have resounded to heated arguments about

the charge, fuelled by a few glasses of traditional mulled wine.

 

A recent opinion poll showed that nearly 60 percent of those questioned

opposed the charge while about 30 percent were in favour.

 

The Swedish Automobile Association says it receives calls and letters

every day about the new tolls from angry and distressed Stockholmers.

 

"People just feel completely run over." said Maria Spetz, the

association's chief executive.

 

Newspapers have set up "toll ombudsmen" to address readers' concerns

about the charges and one has appealed for suggestions on how best to

avoid it.

 

One Web site has a humorous but illegal solution, offering stickers

shaped like number plates bearing the registration of Green Party leader

Peter Eriksson's car.

 

Tough Fight

 

Despite the criticism and the opinion polls, advocates of the charge

may yet win the day.

 

Many inner city dwellers do not drive or own a car, partly because of

the lack of parking spaces, instead using public transport which is

being beefed up ahead of the experiment.

 

The experience of London, set to double the area covered by its

charging system in 2007, also indicates that a defeat for the Stockholm

scheme may be far from certain.

 

Opposition to the charges was widespread in the British capital before

their introduction, but three years later polls show Londoners have

warmed to the system.

 

"There was lots of apocalyptic talk before it was introduced about the

impact it would have," said Transport for London spokesman Richard

Dodd.

 

"People said things like public transport will not cope, London will

become a ghost town, businesses will be driven out and nobody will come

to central London to shop any more."

 

"None of that has turned out to be true."

 

The Swedish charge aims to cut traffic on the most heavily congested

roads by 10-15 percent. In London, which introduced charges in 2001, the

toll has cut traffic volume by 18 percent.

 

The charge is also intended to bring about an overall improvement in

the urban environment in Stockholm, particularly air quality.

 

However, researchers say that seven months may not be enough for the

Swedish experiment to show any results and, for now, it is the nay

sayers who are being heard most.

 

"I hate those charges," said Stockholmer Ingrid Ohman. "They're

pointless and a waste of money. It would be better to use the money help

people fix their teeth."

 

(Additional reporting by Jim Stengarn)

 

     

 

The Automotive Industry, Sustainable Transportation and the New Mobility Agenda – Part 1: Invitation to discuss

 

New Mobility Note:

We open this exchange of information and ideason this topic in parallel both in our new collaborative blog, which you will find today if you click to http://www.newmobility.org and then the Co-Blog link on the top menu, and in our Café/Idea Factory, with this very useful article from The Economist of this week on the latest from the auto industry in their push toward ‘sustainable transportation’. As you know the auto industry has publicly embraced the phrase “sustainable development” and most of the firms even have units which vigorously share with the world information on how all this works from their perspectives. The question is of course if technology at this end will do the trick, or if more is required if they are to emerge as not only a clear part of the problem, but also perhaps eventually as a real part of the solution. But let’s start today with this good review of The Economist team, which already suggests that some of the more knee-jerk thinking about hybrids and their future potential may even from an automotive and technological perceptive need a good vigorous shake. – Eric Britton

 

From The Economist Newspaper, Jan 19th 2006. Source: http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5407644

 

 

Alternatives to Petrol:

 

Gentlemen, Start Your Engines

 

Hybrid motors may not be all they have been cracked up to be, but

America's motorists do seem interested in more fuel-efficient cars

 

VISITORS to the Detroit Auto Show this week will have seen some unusual

presentations alongside the regular razzmatazz of concept cars and new

models. With America distraught about the security of its oil supplies,

and petrol prices stuck well over $2 a gallon (more than 50 cents a

litre) for the past year, the once-neglected term "fuel economy" has

re-entered the country's vocabulary. It is not, however, an American

firm that has led the change. Instead, Toyota, a Japanese company, has

made itself the market leader, with its fuel-sipping petrol-electric

hybrid, the Prius.

 

Petrol-electric hybrids attain their fuel economy by using electric

motors in stop-start city traffic and petrol engines when cruising on

the highway. Toyota expects to sell 400,000 hybrids this year, and the

Prius itself now has a waiting list of 18 months. In the wake of this

success, every carmaker in the world seems to be touting an alternative

to the petrol-driven, four-stroke engine invented by Nikolaus Otto

(above left) that has dominated motoring for almost 100 years.

 

OTTO'S LOTTO

In America, that dominion is still overwhelming. Around 97% of cars

sold there today rely solely on the pistons, spark-plugs and cylinders

of conventional petrol engines to power them (compared with about 50%

in Europe). But petrol-electric hybrids, modern versions of the

alternative internal-combustion engine developed by Otto's rival,

Rudolf Diesel (to the right-hand side of the picture), and even

ethanol-burning engines are making inroads. Ford, for instance, aims to

sell more than 250,000 hybrid versions of five of its mainstream models

this year.

 

The driving force behind this is hybrids' supposed offer of up to 25%

better fuel economy. Although hybrids cost $2,000-3,000 more to buy,

the federal government gives tax incentives of up to $3,600 a vehicle

for buyers of Priuses and seven other sorts of hybrid made by Toyota,

Honda and Ford. On top of this, there are non-monetary inducements,

such as the hybrid driver's right to use high-occupancy vehicle lanes

on dual carriageways, even when he is alone (and even though this adds

to petrol consumption per passenger mile). Equally perversely, this

waiver fails to take advantage of the particular benefits of hybrids,

which are built for stop-go traffic where braking recharges the battery

and boosts fuel economy.

 

Indeed, research has been picking other holes in the hybrid story over

the past two years. CONSUMER REPORTS, a product-rating publication,

tested 303 vehicles in real-life town and highway driving, and found

that nine out of ten of them failed to achieve the fuel-efficiency

claimed for them in tests by America's Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA). In some cases the shortfall was as high as 50% and the worst

offenders were the hybrids. To the silent glee of Detroit's

manufacturers, who were slow off the mark with hybrids, the EPA is

about to revise the way it conducts its measurements. The likely

outcome is that hybrids (with Toyota and Honda to the fore) will fare

far worse.

 

Only a cynic would suggest that domestic manufacturers had encouraged

this updating of fuel-economy standards--for there is indeed a case for

modernising tests last revised in 1985. Since then, congestion has

grown worse, energy-demanding air conditioning has become routine, and

highway speed limits have risen from the 55mph that was enforced after

the oil shock of 1973-74. Hybrids, then, may have been oversold. But

they are not the only answer to the fuel-economy question.

 

RUDOLF TO THE RESCUE

One effect of the 1970s oil shock was to encourage people to buy cars

with diesel engines, which are usually more efficient than Otto-cycle

engines. However, the fashion did not last. Diesels disappeared from

American cars in the 1980s because they were dirty, dull and

unreliable.

 

Two things, however, are reviving interest in them. One is the

appearance of cleaner, low-sulphur fuel. This is already commonplace in

Japan and Europe, and will be introduced to America in the autumn. It

contains a mere 15 parts per million of sulphur, which is less than a

thirtieth of the amount tolerated today. Coupled with recent advances

in direct injection ("common rail") engines that improve combustion,

and durable particulate traps to capture tiny but dangerous particles

of soot, this new fuel is cleaning up emissions and transforming the

prospects for diesels in America. J.D. Power, a market research firm,

forecasts that the share of the market taken by diesel cars will

quadruple from today's 3.2% by 2015.

 

At the motor show, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, BMW, Nissan and Chrysler all

revealed their intentions to make diesel engines available in their

American cars. Volkswagen, which sold about 30,000 diesels in America

last year, says it could have flogged twice that number if it had

anticipated the rise in demand. Mercedes is promoting its new BLUETEC

system--which incorporates oxidising catalytic converters, particulate

filters and a new nitrogen-oxide-reducing system that injects the fuel

with urea. This chemical grabs oxygen atoms from nitrogen oxides to

produce nitrogen gas (which is harmless) and water. BLUETEC will thus

meet new, tougher federal rules on nitrogen-oxide pollution that come

into force in 2009. Mercedes claims the new diesel engines it intends

to put on the American market will also be 20-40% more economical than

their petrol equivalents. It quotes estimates by the Department of

Energy which say that if only one-third of America's cars and light

trucks were diesels, this would save a quantity of oil equivalent to

the country's imports from Saudi Arabia.

 

COAL-POWERED CARS

Dieter Zetsche, the chief executive of DaimlerChrysler, Mercedes'

owner, is still awaiting formal approval from the authorities for his

company's new system. He believes, however, that he has satisfied

concerns from the EPA that drivers would not bother to top up the

urea-injection system, and that the cars would thus pollute more than

they should. He thinks diesels are about to take off as smartly as

hybrids did. Others beg to differ. GM reckons it is wiser to spend its

research budget on technologies such as "lean-burn" petrol engines than

to try to make diesels cleaner. Lean-burn engines use a trick called

homogenous charge-compression ignition--in effect, they are

petrol-burning diesels, since they use pressure rather than spark plugs

to ignite the mix of air and fuel. By copying a diesel's operating

cycle they obtain a similarly superior thermal efficiency and, hence,

fuel economy.

 

And those who don't like diesels can take other paths to clean and

economical cars. The latest buzz is around "plug-in" hybrids. These are

vehicles with even smaller than usual petrol engines, bigger batteries

and the ability to recharge from the mains overnight. Given that the

average American motorist travels barely 30 miles (50km) a day, the

petrol engine in such a hybrid is there mainly to stop the driver being

stranded by a flat battery.

 

Supporters of plug-ins, such as James Woolsey, a former head of

America's Central Intelligence Agency and a man obsessed with the

country's energy security, think such cars offer a clever answer to

dependence on petrol. By shifting the donkeywork of supplying energy

for transport to power stations--which generally burn coal--they make

drivers less vulnerable to the vagaries of the petroleum trade.

 

Carmakers, though, are sceptical about plug-ins. Publicly, they claim

the batteries will not tolerate the rugged regime of recharging

envisaged by Mr Woolsey and his fellow enthusiasts. Some people,

however, suspect that the real reason for the scepticism is a worry

that the successful marketing message which has launched the Prius and

its rivals might be tarnished by memories of plug-in electric vehicles,

such as General Motors' EV1, which flopped in the 1990s.

 

If plug-ins fail to catch on, another way of escaping the Middle East

would be to burn ethanol made from crops. A blend of 85% ethanol with

15% petrol, known as E85, is gaining acceptance since it can be used in

normal petrol engines, and advances in biotechnology promise cheaper

ethanol by turning waste cellulose into the glucose from which ethanol

is fermented. (At the moment most of it comes from maize seeds.) If

that works, it would put paid to the old objection that "gasohol", as

it is sometimes known, consumes more energy in the making than it

releases in the engine. Further down the road, companies such as Ford

and BMW see great possibilities for burning hydrogen in internal

combustion engines (long before it is common in fuel-cell electric

cars). And then there are fuel cells themselves--though they are still

some way off. In the race to find alternatives to petroleum, the

contenders are already on the grid.

* * *

 

(c) 2006 The Economist Newspaper Group Limited. All rights reserved.

See this article with graphics and related items at http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5407644

Economist.com is the online version of The Economist newspaper, an independent weekly international news and business publication offering clear reporting, commentary and analysis on world politics, business, finance, science & technology, culture, society and the arts.

Subscribe Now And Save 25% - Click here: http://www.economist.com/subscriptions/offer.cfm?campaign=168-XLMT

 

 

What is ‘Sustainable Transportation’?

(And how, if at all, does it relate to the New Mobility Agenda?)

 

New Mobility Note & Invitation to Discussion:

 

Editor’s note: We have always felt that these two concepts represent in a rough way two sides of the same basic coin. “Sustainable transportation” defines the problem set and then goes on to provide clues and in some cases supporting structures as to the kinds of solutions that should be better understood and pursued. By contrast the “New Mobility Agenda” is just that, an agenda for change, concentrating on specific measure and tools and implementation and coordination strategies, with strong emphasis on short term (2-4 years) impacts. But just to be sure that this is clear and correct, we have taken to the Wikipedia to post and test these two views. Starting with the first, here you have our very rough and incomplete first cut – for your comment and improvement. (Further background on the workings and values of the Wikipedia, will be found on the New Mobility Agenda site by clicking the Wikipedia link on the top menu.)

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

 From The Economist Newspaper, Jan 19th 2006. Source: http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5407644 

 

Sustainable transportation (Entry under development)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, as per Sunday, January 29, 2006.

Full article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_transportation

Also commonly referred to [Sustainable Transport] or [Sustainable Mobility], there is no widely accepted definition of sustainable transportation by any of these names. One offered by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) may be noted: "Transportation that does not endanger public health or ecosystems and meets mobility needs consistent with (a) use of renewable resources at below their rates of regeneration and (b) use of non-renewable resources at below the rates of development of renewable substitutes". (See the [TDM Encyclopedia of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute] for more definitions.)

Over most of the twentieth century, it was assumed that adequate transportation structures needed to be built since they provide an essential underpinning to growth and economic health. Accordingly the main concern of transport planners and policy makers was in the "supply" of transportation, and specifically in ensuring that the supporting infrastructure was going to be adequate to support all projected requirements. The dominant approach was, therefore, to forecast and then build to meet. In public transport planning likewise it was the supply and efficient operation of vehicles that got the build of attention. As a result, it is claimed by many analysts and observers that most places have as a results heavily overbuilt their physical transportation infrastructures, which in fact has led to unsustainable levels of traffic and resource use.

The sustainable transportation movement, which has gradually gained in force over the last decade and a half, has in the process started to shift the emphasis in public spending and actions away from building and supply, to management and demand. In all cases the values of heightened respect of the environment and prudent use of natural resources are central, with varying degrees of urgency expressed by different actors and interests.

In general the phrase is used to encourage more attention to “softer transport options” such as improved provision for cycling, walking, public spaces, rail and other forms of public transport, together with more aggressive control of car use in central areas. It is not usually used to qualify high technology projects such as monorails, Personal Rapid Transport and the like, not least since one of the earmarks of sustainable transport projects is that they are in general careful users of money and space.

Sustainable transportation programs are increasingly giving attention to the importance of cutting the number of vehicles in circulation (VMT) though a wide range of Transportation Demand Management measures. They also look to “movement substitutes” such as telework, telecommuting and better clustering of activities so as to reduce the need for motorized transport.

Whereas it started as a movement driven by environmental concerns, over these last years there has been increased emphasis on social equity and fairness issues, and in particular the need to ensure proper access and services for lower income groups and people with mobility limitations, including the fast growing population of older citizens. Many of those who have not traditionally been well served have been those who either cannot or should not drive their own cars, and those for whom the cost of ownership provides a sever financial burden.

The automotive and energy industries increasingly use the term [Sustainable Mobility] to describe and promote their technology developments, primarily in the areas of new motive and engine technologies and advances. The impact of these advances however requires at least one or two decades to make a perceptible difference.

Short History

The terms ‘sustainable transportation’ is an almost accidental follow-on to the earlier term the Sustainable Development whose origins in turn were the 1987 Our Common Future (1987, World Commission on Environment and Development of the United Nations. In the years following publication of the Bruntland Report, there was considerable discussion of a variety of issues that are part of the sustainable development nexus, but transportation considerations were not in the front line in those early years.

One of the first international organizations to have a closer look at the concept of sustainable transport from the vantage of government policy was a small international working group led by Peter Wiederkehr at the OECD in 1994, that agreed that a new policy approach is needed which places environmental criteria up front along with other policy goals. Recognizing this need, the OECD initiated in 1994 an international project to define and chart a path towards Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST). The overall objectives of the EST project were to provide an understanding of EST its implications and requirements, and to develop methods and guidelines towards its realization. The core of the EST approach was to develop long-term scenarios and identify instruments and strategies capable of achieving it. To this end the OECD organize with the Government of Canada the 1996 [International Conference: Towards Sustainable Transportation] in Vancouver, Canada. One result of this were the 1996 Vancouver Principles towards Sustainable Transportation and the strategic directions. (The OECD project shut down its operation in July 2004, though the members of the original working group continue to communicate and collaborate at the specific project and policy level under the leadership of the Austrian Federal Ministry of the Environment.)

Some Definitions

The [Canadian Centre for Sustainable Transportation] defines it as follows:

A sustainable transportation system is one that:

• Allows the basic access needs of individuals and societies to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and with equity within and between generations.

• Is affordable, operates efficiently, offers choice of transport mode, and supports a vibrant economy.

• Limits emissions and waste within the planet’s ability to absorb them, minimizes consumption of non-renewable resources, limits consumption of renewable resources to the sustainable yield level, reuses and recycles its components, and minimizes the use of land and the production of noise.

Sustainable transportation is about meeting or helping meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Agenda 21 made several references to the environmental and social impacts of transportation. However, despite transportation's profound relevance to the attainment of sustainable development, Agenda 21 did not contain a chapter on transportation and thus did not provide a comprehensive and integrated approach to the subject. Our capacity to meet many of the environmental objectives listed in Agenda 21 depends on our ability to properly address concerns related to transportation activities in OECD and other countries.

The New Zealand Ministry for the Environment offers this definition: “Sustainable transport is about finding ways to move people, goods and information in ways that reduce its impact on the environment, the economy, and society. Some options include:” using transport modes that use energy more efficiently, such as walking or cycling and public transport improving transport choice by increasing the quality of public transport, cycling and walking facilities, services and environments Improving the efficiency of our car use, such as using more fuel efficient vehicles, driving more efficiently, avoiding cold starts, and car pooling using cleaner fuels and technologies using telecommunications to reduce or replace physical travel, such as tele-working or tele-shopping planning the layout of our cities to bring people and their needs closer together, and to make cities more vibrant and walkable developing policies that allow and promote these options, such as the New Zealand Transport Strategy.

*    *    *

 

Internal References (Note of the following are live links)

3.1 Context

• Environmental impact assessment
• Hierarchy of roads
• Highway engineering
• New Mobility Agenda
• Precautionary principle
• Risk
• Road safety
• Strategic Environmental Assessment
• Street hierarchy
• Sustainability
• Traffic congestion
• Traffic engineering
• Transit-Oriented Development
• Transport engineering
• Transportation planning

3.2 Demand Management

• Bus lane
• Congestion charging
• e-work
• flexible working
• flextime
• Hierarchy of roads
• HOV: High occupancy vehicle
• Intelligent transportation system
• Living streets
• LOV, Low Occupant Vehicle
• Shared space
• Park and ride
• Parking
• Road pricing
• SOV, Single Occupancy Vehicle
• Street hierarchy
• Telecommuting
• Telework
• Toll roads
• Traffic Calming
• TDM: Transportation Demand Management
• Woonerf

3.3 Supply Management

• Bus rapid transit
• Car rental
• Carfree
• Carpooling
• Carsharing
• Cycling, utility cycling
• Hitch-hiking, Informal or organized
• Human-powered_transport
• Jitney
• Midi-bus
• Mini-bus
• Pedestrian#Pedestrianisation
• Public space management
• Public transport
• Ride sharing
• Roller skating
• Share taxis
• Taxicab
• Vanpooling
• Walking

3.4 See also

• Car Free Days
• Carless days (New Zealand)
• Information technology
• Jane Jacobs
• List of carfree areas
• Reclaim the Streets
• Segregated cycle facilities
• Telematics
• Transport 2000

4 External References

• [Canadian Centre for Sustainable Transportation]
• [Sustainable Transport (magazine]

• [Sustainable Urban Transport Project]

• [New Mobility Agenda]

• [New Zealand Ministry for the Environment]

• [TDM Encyclopedia of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute]

• [Principal Voices]

• Google on "New Mobility Agenda"
• Car CarFree Cities, with the CarFree Times
• Car Busters
• Critical Mass
• European Federation for Transport and the Environment (T&E)
• Granada Declaration, Ciudades Accesibles Program of the Spanish Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Environment (MOPTMA), 1993. In English
• Green Vehicle Guide]
• Guiding Principles to Sustainable Mobility
• Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy
• Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP)
• International Walk to School program
• Kyoto World Cities 20/20 Challenge
• Less Traffic program
• Living Streets (UK)
• [New Mobility HUBs (Canada)]
• New Ways to Work in an Information Society
• Online TDM Encyclopedia of Victoria Transport Policy Institute
• Road Peace
• Shared Space
• Slower Speeds Initiative
• Stockholm Environmental Institute
• Sustrans cycling network (UK)
• Sustran Network (South-East Asia)
• Telematics for Sustainable Transport
• Toronto New Mobility Week: 2004
• TrafficCalming.org
• Transport 2000
• Transportation Alternatives (NYC, USA)
• Travel Wise Advisory program (UK)
• Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice

 

2006 progress evaluation

The term sustainable transportation and its variants has informed a certain number of university programs and NGOs, and while it is richly debated in specific circles until now it has by and large failed to enter into the mainstream of transport policy and practice in most places -- if by that is meant money invested. But one can say that first steps have been taken and that the movement is gradually developing force. But it has a long way to go if it is ever to become mainstream. ericbritton 16:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*    *     *

For the New Mobility Agenda entry (also in process and still very rough):  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mobility_Agenda

 

 

 

 

 

Search for an Executive Director - The Centre for Sustainable Transportation

The Centre for Sustainable Transportation A NATIONAL LEADERSHIP ROLE ON THE PATH TO THE FUTURE Canada’s future as an economically vibrant nation depends on the safe, affordable, accessible and environmentally responsible mobility of both people and goods. Founded in 1996, the Centre has earned international plaudits for its definition of sustainable transportation and for its ongoing commentary on the issue. As Canadian and international governments recognize the importance of harmonizing transportation systems with ecosystems, a vibrant economy and societal goals, you will lead the way as . . . EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR With its new headquarters on the University of Winnipeg campus, The Centre for Sustainable Transportation is poised to take on an even more profound role in research, advocacy, public education and policy development. Your mission is to attract new members, new research projects and new attention to the cause. Plan, lead and build the Centre. Foster industry, government and community relationships. Be a lightning rod for changing opinions and legislation. Ensure that Canada is in the forefront of developing sustainable transportation solutions. As a visionary advocate, business developer and organizational builder, you may be in government, the private transportation sector or consulting today. Familiar with Canadian policy development and research, you have both strategic and operational credentials. You also have the potential to contribute to teaching and scholarship. Establish a legacy by leading the next wave in sustainable transportation. All responses to The Caldwell Partners are confidential. Please indicate your interest in Project 8232 through the Opportunities section of www.caldwell.ca, by email to resumes@..., or in writing to 2110 - 360 Main Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3C 3Z3.

 

We have in the last few weeks begun a group definition of “sustainable transportation” in the English language version of the Wikipedia.  But it exists in dozens of other languages as well, and since it is rapidly emerging as a first or second stop shop for people trying to sort out new concepts and their place in this world, it strikes me that we should get ourselves together to take the entry that we have thus far developed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_transportation -- and then hope that one of our number or someone who cares about sustainability in our daily lives, to help develop even better entries in French, Spanish, German, Portuguese, Italian, Russian, Swedish, Japanese, Urdu, Hindustani, Arabic  . . . And why does this list have to stop, eh?  (And yes of course also Esperanto.)

 

Now what is great about the Wikipedia way of life is that these various language entries themselves can link – see the entry on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development to see how that works.

 

Thus, one thing that I have in mind is that if we do this and if those of us who have some language capacities can travel between the various language groups we can learn and bring over ideas and concepts that our particular entry may not yet have spotted and integrated.

 

And if you do this, I would be very pleased if you could kindly keep us in the loop.

 

Eric Britton

 

PS. You will see if you do not already accept this: Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Organizing_Collaborative_Network) do or at least can be made to work!

 

 

Thank you Stephen,

 

This is a clear reminder that we need to be very careful in how we state all this, and I can only thank you for jabbing me on this.  Here is my considered take on your point, and while I normally try not to engage in the exchanges here -- since this is what this particular Wikipedia group effort is about, I think it important that I share my reactions with the group as a whole.

 

The Wikipedia is based on the principle of neutrality. Therefore when we write about our topic, we must see it as it is – not as we might perhaps wish it to be. (I have tried to provide some clear and pretty easy links into the guts of the Wikipedia workings that you can find in the lower half of the left menu under our Wikipedia top menu link. If you take the time you will see that there is more to it than you may have thought.  You will see how Nature magazine tested it against the Britannica. Interesting to say the least)

 

Yes and of curse I agree with you on this Stephan: there has been a sustained current of critical lucidity in the world of transportation that goes back far before Mrs. Bruntland and, if you will, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development. Jane Jacobs has been one very important force in this.  As have you, Mayer Hillman, and yet others. (See below)

 

But – and I am sure that you will be the first to agree – this current of more critical thinking has until recently largely gone ignored by those in power. While there were indeed the occasional victories, they were the exception and not the rule. Far from it!  Dismissed by policy and decision makers with the wave of a hand – and even more often simply not acknowledged – as idealistic, impractical, impracticable, disingenuous, and even loony, leftist and anti-democratic ranting – the main lines of the transportation agenda simply were not impacted in any notable way. Look at it dollar for dollar and you’ll see that even today the whole thing is still for the most part about optimizing flows between points, maximizing vehicles throughput and all the rest.

 

That said, and as the Wiki draft tries to state fairly: this situation is shifting -- and the shift goes back at least a decade in terms of its notably gaining momentum.  The truth though is that even today after so many years we continue to generate more words than key decisions.  There is now the rhetoric of sustainable transportation, and we are seeing it used and abused like never before. But there is still a great deal of progress to be made out there in the real world and on the street.  (And that is why I believe it is worth our all taking the time needed to make sure that we have a solid statement of what this is all about to put before the media, the researchers, the activists, students, those in government who often really would like to know how to do better. So I hope that I will be able to engage you all to this important group challenge.)

 

As to when the first quantum break came, to get the ball rolling here I have based, on my own observations and experience, set an arbitrary limit of 1990 to this kind of continental divide. But it was in the early nineties the ball was really beginning to get rolling.  And by the time that the OECD and Canadian government got together to organize the international conference Toward Sustainable Transportation, in Vancouver in March 1996, things were really beginning to take shape. (You can find the original web page on this if you go to http://www.newmobility.org)

 

In this entry, we are trying to view the phenomenon of the sustainable transportation movement as a whole (difficult of course since it really is the sustainable of its parts). There are clearly numerous antecedents: the freeway revolts in North America, the first Woonerfs in the Netherlands, the early carsharing projects – but in all cases these events or movements were about something else, something more specific and not about “sustainable transportation” as an identifiable whole.  Again, it was only with the last two decades that the movement really started to take shape.

 

But then there is ever the ineluctable bottom line: a lot of the actors maybe talking the talk of sustainable transportation, but when it’s time to walk the walk, to spend the money, other values continue to prevail.

 

Which is what sustainable transport today is indeed all about.

 

PS. I would like to see if I can get some help from you all to fill out the following which once it is solid enough I would like to transfer to the Wikipedia to see what  others might do with it.  What you have here are a number of names taken off the top of my head – and it is so terribly incomplete that I must apologize. However I am sure that you all will be able to help us do a lot better. And let’s bear in mind that 1990 benchmark date.

 

Some Early Voices of Sustainable Transportation (pre-1990)

 

·         Jane Jacobs

·         Stephen Plowden

·         Mayer Hillman

·         John Whitelegg

·         John Adams

·         Wolfgang Zuckermann

·         Jan Gehl

·         Peter Newman

·         Chris Bradshaw

·         Luud Schimmelpennink

·         Woonerf movement in the Netherlands

·         Donald Appleyard

·         Neil Goldschmidt

 

Then, since these are important figures, it will be good if some of us might go in and start entries on those who are not already covered there.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Plowden [mailto:stephenplowden@...]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:38 AM

 

I dispute the history in this article, especially the suggestion that

the idea that the job of transport planning was to supply infrastructure

was little questioned until about 15 years ago. It was seriously

questioned in Britain (and probably other countries, which never fell

for the transportation studies which Britain imported from America - no

blame to the Americans) since the mid 1960s and for reasons of

efficiency as well as environment. (The "predict and provide" approach

is simply infeasible; bus lanes improve the carrying capacity of streets

in terms or people rather than vehicles.) Sorry, I don't have time to

develop this theme now, but I am worried that this article is part of a

historical myth which is now growing up.

 

eric.britton wrote:

 

> *What is ‘Sustainable Transportation’? *

>

> (And how, if at all, does it relate to the New Mobility Agenda?)

>

> * *

>

> *New Mobility Note & Invitation to Discussion:*

>

> *Editor’s note:* We have always felt that these two concepts represent

> in a rough way two sides of the same basic coin. “Sustainable

> transportation” defines the problem set and then goes on to provide

> clues and in some cases supporting structures as to the kinds of

> solutions that should be better understood and pursued. By contrast

> the “New Mobility Agenda” is just that, an /agenda/ for change,

> concentrating on specific measure and tools and implementation and

> coordination strategies, with strong emphasis on short term (2-4

> years) impacts. But just to be sure that this is clear and correct, we

> have taken to the Wikipedia to post and test these two views. Starting

> with the first, here you have our very rough and incomplete first cut

> – for your comment and improvement. (Further background on the

> workings and values of the Wikipedia, will be found on the New

> Mobility Agenda site by clicking the Wikipedia link on the top menu.)

>

> ********************************

 

To extend Michael’s post, I think the basic (physical) dimension that has to be taken into account when thinking about sustainable transport (and transport policy) is distance traveled rather than time. Trips must be short in distance, regardless of their length in time. People have to travel one hour per day, by means of any mode of transport. The key is to develop cities and transport systems which would easily provide that hour in sustainable distances. The main “unsustainability” problem in the US is sprawl, which generates longer travel distances, within the same time frame. People will want to live farther because they are traveling faster. However, if you travel by car in cities like Bangkok, the same hour can be spent in much less distance than walking (I did this test many times, and I always won walking!). People are used to cars to such extent that they feel the time spent will always be less than walking or by bus.

 

-          A reminder that will always help us: speed = distance/time; time = distance/speed; distance = time x speed.

-          A second reminder: Einstein’s special relativity formula was correct only for very high speeds (but that is a slightly different topic).

 

Best regards,

 

 

Dear Eric and others battling for a better world,

I note the wonderful effort to describe "sustainable transportation" (ST) and also the interesting comments in the earlier emails (below). My apologies for any double postings but both "topics" are included in the subject line above for those who missed one of them).

There are two aspects of ST that seem to be particularly elusive whether for short or long trips.

The first is the extent/degree to which the transportation is "sustainable" eg in energy use to name one "measure". But also given the historic role of transport(ation) in encouraging/assisting further development that then requires more transportation which is usually less sustainable (eg cars, planes in particular), surely we need to consider the effects/impacts of transportation on development of towns and cities over time.

It seems clear that in the not too distant future, rocket trips to the moon and beyond could well be considered as "sustainable" if the ST  definition/description relates primarily to the relative efficiency and/or "necessity" rather than, say, to actual energy consumption eg per person or per kg.

It would seem that walking or use of human powered vehicles (HPVs) should rank far higher on an ST scale but do they in practice or even in policy?

This view is supported by the oft-repeated view that "improved" transportation only encourages more use/demand and faster travel induces longer trips ... outcomes which in both cases are arguably not (very) "sustainable" ie global trips by plane of cut flowers ... or people.

The second consideration then is one I first heard put in a very logical form by Mayer Hillman way back last century (over 10 years ago) in 1995. Hillman questioned the impacts of public transport (which are almost identical to those of dominant car use) being promoted as a viable or useful alternative to reliance on cars (and a similar view applies to trucks etc) rather than promoting walking and cycling.

The title of Hillman's paper is apt ... "Cycling as the realistic substitute for the car: burying the conventional urban myth about public transport" (Velo-city Conference Basel 1995).

Thus the real reason for promoting public transport is to do with still catering for the longer, cheaper, more comfortable car-type trips as an alternative to walking or cycling and the impacts they would have.

This view is now further developed by the notion of carbon use (but other expendables should also be included). As Hillman has pointed out, the per person carbon use for someone (eg me) to fly to the UK from Australia (in that case for a cycling conference!!) is roughly the equivalent per person of the average carbon use for transport for 1-2 perhaps now 3 years in Australia.

We should never forget that a similar view applies to freight ie per kg.

So if carefully considered, I have a choice... either I fly to attend a conference in UK once every 1-2 years and use ZERO carbon over that period back here ... or I don't go to the conference. That is the price of a claim for not being even less sustainable!

Of course I could consider slower modes with much less carbon cost eg like sail powered travel, but unfortunately, to allow more people to travel further and faster, planes have developed rather faster (and with more comfort and convenience and even safety) than sail powered travel.

So here we have another aspect of ST that does not seem to be considered ... the negative impacts of ST based on other than "natural" or human power.

So back to the emails below. It seems to me that ST is NOT well described by light rail if the result is trams bursting at the seams with people when many of those trips are induced by cities and towns that have developed in response to faster and further trips by more people.

I suggest that ST (esp as a "technology" we know currently) really begins with MAXIMUM use of modes with as close as possible (NOT as close as practicable) zero energy expenditure and that the arguments for ST are then much weakened by including high tech non-renewable and carbon/nuclear energy using modes such as public transport (aside from public transport schemes such as Copenhagen's "city bikes" and where the service whether transporting passengers/freight is provided by others using HPVs etc).

It follows then that walking including human powered vehicles of all types and for all purposes (ie including cycling) must rank far higher as ST than any form of carbon consuming mode (and similarly for nuclear fuel) and in between are the modes fueled/powered by short term renewables including wind, water and sun and possibly, some other "natural" thermal sources.

Otherwise and perhaps it is inevitable (but then the description of ST should say so), ST will be used to promote modes of transport and development that are far from "sustainable" to the detriment of the modes that are sustainable.

That is, there is a high risk of repeating the domination of transport(ation) by modes that are just like the car in terms of outcomes and impacts.

Unlike back in 1907 (nearly 100 years ago!!), we are in a better position to at least question and guard against these types of problems.

Why 1907?

Back in 1907 during a debate about introducing a fuel tax, the UK Prime Minister Asquith described the car as "a luxury that is apt to degenerate into a nuisance". In 1907 ...!!

How true!

It therefore seems that in trying to describe/promote ST, we should try to ensure that ST does not facilitate similar outcomes to current practices unless they result in "true" ST.

We should guard against a proliferation of light rail for example if described/promoted as ST when in fact it is really only a "better" solution and questionable alternative to allowing cities to become so congested that the car is such a nuisance it is no longer a luxury and walking and HPVs become not only viable but again a luxury ...!

Thus, in the interim and in the description of ST, we should all try to ensure ST encourages more walking or cycling or using any other HPV ... and using public transport and the car less... if only to demonstrate and experience ST.

That way there is at least a chance that public transport won't, like car use, become so dominant that the "true" ST modes are still seen as dangerous, unhealthy, a problem, inconvenient and a nuisance ... to their detriment.

In other words, should we not at least consider whether, if ST is not the most suitable description/definition, then perhaps another concept is needed in order to keep ST from "becoming" the description/definition of/for transport(ation) that is promoted as sustainable but is increasingly less so to the detriment of the sustainable modes?

Michael Yeates
Convenor
Public Transport Alliance
Brisbane Queensland Australia .............
 

To: Kyoto2020@yahoogroups.com
From: Anzir Boodoo <ab@...>
Sender: Kyoto2020@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:24:40 +0000
Subject: Re: [Kyoto2020] Express toll roads + More on

Eric,
On 13 Dec 2005, at 14:04, Eric Britton wrote:
> I love trams by whatever name and feel that indeed they have their 
> place in and around our cities-- but that is a very specific place 
> and should not be allowed to be interpreted as the substitute for 
> sliced bread.
>
> What’s wrong with all-light rail in this overall strategic context? 
> Two things (again in my book):
>
> They cost a great deal more than other solutions which can do at 
> least as good and perhaps a better job in terms of all the basic 
> parameters that we need to address and meet ­ social, economics (of 
> individuals and the community as a whole), environmental, resource. 
> Public health, life quality, community.. .. and of course the long 
> list goes on.
Can I offer http://www.trampower.co.uk as a possibility? They've been 
working on a low cost light rail system that claims to be 
commercially viable in many cities, and have called upon me to help 
publicise it.

Of course, that doesn't deal with the implementation time and the 
political reluctance to have light rail that we experience in the UK. 
Systems which very successfully carry huge numbers of people in full 
to bursting trams are often described as "failing". partly because 
virtually none of the systems can recoup their huge construction costs.
--
Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF

The GTZ SUTP has published a revised 40-page module on Public Awareness Raising in Sustainable Transport (module 1e, 3.8 MB) by Carlos F. Pardo. It has expanded on some of the issues that were developed in the initial document, and has included information on diagnostic tools, levels of awareness of the population, types of information that can be given to the target groups and complementing other chapters. This module will be complemented in May 2006 by a Training Course on the same topic, and it will also be translated into Spanish by June 2006.

 

The module is available (after registration) in www.sutp.org/download/index.php (Topic 1, module 1e).

 

Best regards,

 

GTZ Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP-Asia)
Room 0942, Transport Division, UN-ESCAP
ESCAP UN Building
Rajadamnern Nok Rd.
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel:  +66 (0) 2 - 288  2576

Fax: +66 (0) 2 - 280  6042
Mobile: +66 (0) 1 - 772 4727
e-mail: carlos.pardo@...
Website: www.sutp.org

 

GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP-LAC)
Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404
Bogotá D.C., Colombia
Tel:  +57 (1) 215 7812 / 635 9048

Fax: +57 (1) 635 9015 / 236 2309
Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662
e-mail: carlos.pardo@...
Página: www.sutp.org

- Visite nuestra nueva sección de Latinoamérica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm

- Únase al grupo de discusión de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoamérica en http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sustranlac/join

 

Dear all,

 

The talk I mentioned on Sustainable transport definitions and indicators is available from WRI website at http://embarq.wri.org/en/ConferencesDetail.aspx?ID=43 .I reproduce the text below,

 

10:45 – 12:15              The Vision:  Sustainable transport for people.  What do people want, and how do they know if they are getting it?

What is a definition of sustainable transport in terms that can used to assess problems, identify and evaluate options for solving them? How does one measure sustainability? EMBARQ’s Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport, and the World Bank’s Transport Indicators, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and others define the problem.

Speakers:

• Lee Schipper, EMBARQ
• Prof. Madhav Badhami, McGill Univ
• Henry Malbran, SECTRA, Santiago de Chile
• David Kriger, ITRANS, Ottawa
• Peter Roberts, World Bank
• Duncan Eggar, British Petroleum Sustainable Mobility

Madhav Badami - Definition, Measurement, Issues.pdf

Henry Malbran - Sustainable Transport for People - Our Vision in Chile.pdf

David Kriger - Measuring Sustainable Transport.pdf

Peter Roberts - Urban Transport Global Indicators.pdf

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

Carlos F. Pardo
Coordinador de Proyecto
GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC)
Cl 125bis # 41-28 of 404
Bogotá D.C., Colombia
Tel:  +57 (1) 215 7812 / 635 9048

Fax: +57 (1) 635 9015 / 236 2309
Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662
e-mail: carlos.pardo@...
Página: www.sutp.org

- Visite nuestra nueva sección de Latinoamérica y el Caribe en http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm

- Únase al grupo de discusión de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoamérica enviando un correo a  sutp-lac-subscribe@...