Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fair Transport - comments

Expand Messages
  • Ann Hackett [mailto:aha@pacific.net]
    ... From: Ann Hackett [mailto:aha@pacific.net] Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:22 PM To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org Cc: Main Identity Subject: Fair Transport and
    Message 1 of 10 , Apr 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

       

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ann Hackett [mailto:aha@...]
      Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 11:22 PM
      To: eric.britton@...
      Cc: Main Identity
      Subject: Fair Transport and other thoughts

       

      Dear Eric,

      I'm glad to see the concept of Fair Transport because it's a crucial factor.  My primary objection to Congestion Charging is that it has an inherent economic bias that favors those who can afford to pay the charges.  There're also the installation charges and the addictive revenue that makes officials reluctant to look for a better way.

       

      Other thoughts:

       

      1.  When looking at the stakeholders for full and equitable treatment (existence) include the earth and future generations. 

       

      2.  I think that parking is the key.  Eliminating on-street parking and providing commercial replacement vehicles i.e., xTransit, allows space for safe and secure bicycle lanes.  Dedicated one-way streets help make this possible.  The other side of the street could be arranged by alternating color-coded blocks for passengers, delivery and service vehicles.

       

      3.  Bicycle racks can fill the role of the protective barrier for pedestrians.

       

      4.  Businesses' interests are tied to customer traffic, not parking.  If sufficient levels of customer activity were to be maintained with public transportation and xTransit, then parking could become an obsolete issue and business would not flee to the suburbs.

       

      5.  Parking elimination does not generate revenue like Congestion Charging but it does generate positive by-products that are cost reducing such as environmental and health benefits and reduced lost productivity due to congestion.  

       

      6.  xTransit vehicles do not generally deliver passengers door to door.  Rather they take them close enough to their destinations so that they can walk the remainder.  This facilitates the flow of the vehicles.  Exceptions can always be made.

       

      7.  The above conversion fits the near term criteria and is inexpensive to implement, i.e. paint, signs, and new businesses .  People in major metropolitan centers could maintain the same level of mobility for the same amount of money that they currently pay to own and operate a car. 

       

      8.  I suggest that Al Gore would be a good nominee for the prize.  He has become the spokesperson for global warming and the emergency we are all experiencing.

       

      9.  The high and unstable oil prices are opening a window for change.     

       

      10. They say there are no short term solutions but that is looking at the problem with the old way of thinking of what is and not of what could be.     

       

      Thank you,

       

      Ann Hackett 

    • Stephen Plowden
      Ann has some good points about congestion chargiing. Cafe society may be interested in the submission that Keith Buchan and I made to the House of Commons
      Message 2 of 10 , May 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Ann has some good points about congestion chargiing. Cafe society may be
        interested in the submission that Keith Buchan and I made to the House
        of Commons Transport Committee more than ten years ago. Apologies if I
        have sent it before.

        Ann Hackett [mailto:aha@...] wrote:

        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > *From:* Ann Hackett [mailto:aha@...]
        > *Sent:* Friday, April 30, 1999 11:22 PM
        > *To:* eric.britton@...
        > *Cc:* Main Identity
        > *Subject:* Fair Transport and other thoughts
        >
        >
        >
        > Dear Eric,
        >
        > I'm glad to see the concept of Fair Transport because it's a crucial
        > factor. My primary objection to Congestion Charging is that it has an
        > inherent economic bias that favors those who can afford to pay the
        > charges. There're also the installation charges and the addictive
        > revenue that makes officials reluctant to look for a better way.
        >
        >
        >
        > Other thoughts:
        >
        >
        >
        > 1. When looking at the stakeholders for full and equitable treatment
        > (existence) include the earth and future generations.
        >
        >
        >
        > 2. I think that parking is the key. Eliminating on-street parking
        > and providing commercial replacement vehicles i.e., xTransit, allows
        > space for safe and secure bicycle lanes. Dedicated one-way streets
        > help make this possible. The other side of the street could be
        > arranged by alternating color-coded blocks for passengers, delivery
        > and service vehicles.
        >
        >
        >
        > 3. Bicycle racks can fill the role of the protective barrier for
        > pedestrians.
        >
        >
        >
        > 4. Businesses' interests are tied to customer traffic, not parking.
        > If sufficient levels of customer activity were to be maintained with
        > public transportation and xTransit, then parking could become an
        > obsolete issue and business would not flee to the suburbs.
        >
        >
        >
        > 5. Parking elimination does not generate revenue like Congestion
        > Charging but it does generate positive by-products that are cost
        > reducing such as environmental and health benefits and reduced lost
        > productivity due to congestion.
        >
        >
        >
        > 6. xTransit vehicles do not generally deliver passengers door to
        > door. Rather they take them close enough to their destinations so
        > that they can walk the remainder. This facilitates the flow of the
        > vehicles. Exceptions can always be made.
        >
        >
        >
        > 7. The above conversion fits the near term criteria and is
        > inexpensive to implement, i.e. paint, signs, and new businesses .
        > People in major metropolitan centers could maintain the same level of
        > mobility for the same amount of money that they currently pay to own
        > and operate a car.
        >
        >
        >
        > 8. I suggest that Al Gore would be a good nominee for the prize. He
        > has become the spokesperson for global warming and the emergency we
        > are all experiencing.
        >
        >
        >
        > 9. The high and unstable oil prices are opening a window for change.
        >
        >
        >
        > 10. They say there are no short term solutions but that is looking at
        > the problem with the old way of thinking of what is and not of what
        > could be.
        >
        >
        >
        > Thank you,
        >
        >
        >
        > Ann Hackett
        >
        >
      • Lee Schipper
        Funny, I am in New Zealand and was interviewed on this a few hours ago: http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/394182/ckpt-4455ABBC-wmbr.asx To be
        Message 3 of 10 , May 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Funny, I am in New Zealand and was interviewed on this a few hours ago:
          http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/394182/ckpt-4455ABBC-wmbr.asx


          To be blunt, life is full of economic biases * the truly poor dont have cars and benefit immensely from better
          bus service that getting cars off the streets allows. The rest of us have to make a choice * is this trip worth it?
          I believe most, if not all drivers are prepared to make that choice.

          What is the "better way"?

          >>> stephenplowden@... 5/1/2006 4:05:54 AM >>>
          Ann has some good points about congestion chargiing. Cafe society may be
          interested in the submission that Keith Buchan and I made to the House
          of Commons Transport Committee more than ten years ago. Apologies if I
          have sent it before.

          Ann Hackett [mailto:aha@...] wrote:

          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > *From:* Ann Hackett [mailto:aha@...]
          > *Sent:* Friday, April 30, 1999 11:22 PM
          > *To:* eric.britton@...
          > *Cc:* Main Identity
          > *Subject:* Fair Transport and other thoughts
          >
          >
          >
          > Dear Eric,
          >
          > I'm glad to see the concept of Fair Transport because it's a crucial
          > factor. My primary objection to Congestion Charging is that it has an
          > inherent economic bias that favors those who can afford to pay the
          > charges. There're also the installation charges and the addictive
          > revenue that makes officials reluctant to look for a better way.
          >
          >
          >
          > Other thoughts:
          >
          >
          >
          > 1. When looking at the stakeholders for full and equitable treatment
          > (existence) include the earth and future generations.
          >
          >
          >
          > 2. I think that parking is the key. Eliminating on-street parking
          > and providing commercial replacement vehicles i.e., xTransit, allows
          > space for safe and secure bicycle lanes. Dedicated one-way streets
          > help make this possible. The other side of the street could be
          > arranged by alternating color-coded blocks for passengers, delivery
          > and service vehicles.
          >
          >
          >
          > 3. Bicycle racks can fill the role of the protective barrier for
          > pedestrians.
          >
          >
          >
          > 4. Businesses' interests are tied to customer traffic, not parking.
          > If sufficient levels of customer activity were to be maintained with
          > public transportation and xTransit, then parking could become an
          > obsolete issue and business would not flee to the suburbs.
          >
          >
          >
          > 5. Parking elimination does not generate revenue like Congestion
          > Charging but it does generate positive by-products that are cost
          > reducing such as environmental and health benefits and reduced lost
          > productivity due to congestion.
          >
          >
          >
          > 6. xTransit vehicles do not generally deliver passengers door to
          > door. Rather they take them close enough to their destinations so
          > that they can walk the remainder. This facilitates the flow of the
          > vehicles. Exceptions can always be made.
          >
          >
          >
          > 7. The above conversion fits the near term criteria and is
          > inexpensive to implement, i.e. paint, signs, and new businesses .
          > People in major metropolitan centers could maintain the same level of
          > mobility for the same amount of money that they currently pay to own
          > and operate a car.
          >
          >
          >
          > 8. I suggest that Al Gore would be a good nominee for the prize. He
          > has become the spokesperson for global warming and the emergency we
          > are all experiencing.
          >
          >
          >
          > 9. The high and unstable oil prices are opening a window for change.
          >
          >
          >
          > 10. They say there are no short term solutions but that is looking at
          > the problem with the old way of thinking of what is and not of what
          > could be.
          >
          >
          >
          > Thank you,
          >
          >
          >
          > Ann Hackett
          >
          >

          Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org
          To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
          But please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
          (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)




          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Eric Britton (Paris)
          ... From: Joerg.Haeberli@astra.admin.ch [mailto:Joerg.Haeberli@astra.admin.ch] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:26 AM To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org Subject: AW:
          Message 4 of 10 , May 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Nachricht

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Joerg.Haeberli@... [mailto:Joerg.Haeberli@...]
            Sent
            : Monday, May 01, 2006 9:26 AM
            To: eric.britton@...
            Subject: AW: Fair Transport: A New Mobility Agenda for the Developing World

             

            Dear Eric

             

            thanks a lot for your very interesting information and the lot of work you have made!

             

            As a worker for the Swiss Federal Roads Authority, my paper 2003 about the Mission Statement was thought to show that even the federal level can take initative for human powered mobility - and regarded from the financial point of view give some little money (from the huge amount of national highway budget) to this form of transportation. The term "fair" was then used in the sense of "if we spend so much money to the automobile transportation system, that has so much negative impacs, we are also able to spend a little money to enhance the hpm-system to give back some quality of life to the people."

             

            I think in that way, I can accept your parallel between "Fair Trade" and "Fair Transport". Even in Switzerland the term "sustainable" is nowadays not used very clearly ... and everyone understands very different things with this term. In the context with national highways I really wonder what sustainable means (phasis of building, maintaining, functioning; quality of life of people having all the different immissions; from the financial point of view).

              

            Yours sincerely

             

            Jörg

             

            Jörg Häberli, dipl. Ing. ETH
            Swiss Federal Roads Authority (FEDRO)
            Road network division, Network planning
            CH-3003 Berne
            ( +41 (0)31 324 04 55
            6 +41 (0)31 323 23 03
            * joerg.haeberli@...
            : www.astra.admin.ch
             

            -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
            Von: Eric Britton (Paris) [mailto:eric.britton@...]
            Gesendet: Sonntag, 30. April 2006 15:02
            An: Häberli Jörg ASTRA
            Betreff: Fair Transport: A New Mobility Agenda for the Developing World

            Dear Jörg,

             

            I am in the process of taking a stab at defining a substitute term for ‘sustainable transport’, on the grounds that no one seems to be able to figure out what it means – at least enough to make a difference in our transport policies and practices in most parts of the world.  And for some time now, I have been thrashing around for something that might do the job better.

             

            (You may want to have at the two related entries that I have largely been responsible for in the Wikipedia which provide further background (including my thinking on all this) at  (a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_transportation and (b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mobility_Agenda )

             

            As you can well imagine, my immediate inspiration for this new term has been the Fair Trade movement, which I find exemplary for the transport sector as well – not least because of their ability to bring the issues and actual decisions into people’s daily lives.  Something that ‘sustainable transport’ for better or worse has not really succeeded in doing.

             

            And just as I was finishing the attached for the comments of my colleagues in the New Mobility Agenda forum – http://www.newmobility.org – I decided to Google the term, and of all that I turned up there the only thing that really related was your fine 2003 piece, which I immediately mentioned here.

             

            I hope you find some use in this and if you have any thoughts or suggestions, beleive me they will receive my full and immediate attention.

             

            Let’s stay in touch.

             

            With all good wishes,

             

            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

             

             

          • Alice Maynard
            ... From: Alice Maynard [mailto:alice@futureinclusion.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:07 PM To: eric.britton@ecoplan.org Subject: Fair transport Hello Eric I
            Message 5 of 10 , May 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Alice Maynard [mailto:alice@...]
              Sent:
              Monday, May 01, 2006 3:07 PM
              To: eric.britton@...
              Subject: Fair transport

               

              Hello Eric

              I will like the concept of fair transport a great deal if it does what ‘sustainable transport’ never quite managed to do – i.e. incorporate the notion of accessibility – not in the jargonistic transport sense, but in the sense that we mere mortals use it.  I don’t want to use the term ‘disabled access’ although that’s one distinction I make when talking to transport professionals.  It’s about more than that – it’s dignified, socially enhancing access for everyone.  You touch on it in mentioning gender issues, but I’d like it to be a little broader, and perhaps more explicit.  In my experience, if it isn’t mentioned explicitly it isn’t addressed – it just gets lost, despite everyone’s best intentions.

               

              Alice, futureinclusion.com

               

            • eter Zimmer [mailto:pzimmer@eastlink.ca]
              ... From: Peter Zimmer [mailto:pzimmer@eastlink.ca] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:27 PM FAIR TRANSPORT? I like this proposed semantic shift from sustainable
              Message 6 of 10 , May 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment

                ----Original Message-----
                From: Peter Zimmer [mailto:pzimmer@...]
                Sent:
                Monday, May 01, 2006 4:27 PM

                 

                FAIR TRANSPORT?   I like this proposed semantic shift from "sustainable transport".  It opens explicitly  questions of inclusion, cross-generational impacts, ... and moves it beyond "mere" ecology

                (which is a boring guilt trip to many).

                 

                "Is it fair that traffic engineers and highway designers impute a value for motorists' time lost in traffic jams at $15 an hour, and never even bother to calculate the time losses imposed on pedestrians, the

                disabled and transit users, much less give them a fair, equal  monetary value as they calculate costs and benefits?" ....

                 

                I like it.  Let's think about adopting this in Ecology Action Centre and our Transportation Issues Committee.

                 

                Peter

                 

              • Eric Bruun
                Technically, modelers aer supposed to include time savings for transit users as well as highway users, but I am not sure this is always done in practice. But
                Message 7 of 10 , May 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Technically, modelers aer supposed to include time savings for transit users as well as highway users, but I am not sure this is always done in practice. But for sure, the time impact on pedestrians caused by
                  auto-based communities is never considered.
                   
                  Eric Bruun


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: , , null@null
                  Sent: May 1, 2006 12:46 PM
                  To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Fair Transport - comments

                  ----Original Message-----
                  From: Peter Zimmer [mailto:pzimmer@...]
                  Sent:
                  Monday, May 01, 2006 4:27 PM

                   

                  FAIR TRANSPORT?   I like this proposed semantic shift from "sustainable transport".  It opens explicitly  questions of inclusion, cross-generational impacts, ... and moves it beyond "mere" ecology

                  (which is a boring guilt trip to many).

                   

                  "Is it fair that traffic engineers and highway designers impute a value for motorists' time lost in traffic jams at $15 an hour, and never even bother to calculate the time losses imposed on pedestrians, the

                  disabled and transit users, much less give them a fair, equal  monetary value as they calculate costs and benefits?" ....

                   

                  I like it.  Let's think about adopting this in Ecology Action Centre and our Transportation Issues Committee.

                   

                  Peter

                   



                  Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org  
                  To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  But please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                  (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)







                  SPONSORED LINKS
                  New mobilityIdeas


                  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




                • Anzir Boodoo
                  Jörg & Peter, ... Now that s interesting... In the UK, the argument has been that the road system receives more money than rail and bus, but of course a lot
                  Message 8 of 10 , May 1, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jörg & Peter,
                    > From: Joerg.Haeberli@...
                    > [mailto:Joerg.Haeberli@...]
                    >
                    > As a worker for the Swiss Federal Roads Authority, my paper 2003
                    > about the Mission Statement was thought to show that even the
                    > federal level can take initative for human powered mobility - and
                    > regarded from the financial point of view give some little money
                    > (from the huge amount of national highway budget) to this form of
                    > transportation. The term "fair" was then used in the sense of "if
                    > we spend so much money to the automobile transportation system,
                    > that has so much negative impacs, we are also able to spend a
                    > little money to enhance the hpm-system to give back some quality of
                    > life to the people."
                    Now that's interesting...

                    In the UK, the argument has been that the road system receives more
                    money than rail and bus, but of course a lot more people travel by road.

                    Rail is seen to be the most expensive mode per passenger km (because
                    environmental costs and congestion externalities have traditionally
                    been ignored), so from a straight UK Government perspective, "Fair
                    Transport" in that sense means spend more money on roads and less on
                    rail.

                    However, taking two modes that policy usually ignores, it also says
                    to spend a lot of money on walking initiatives. Most drivers in town
                    and city centres do not drive right up to their destinations, but
                    need to walk from a car park to their destination.

                    Given that virtually everyone walks, how much extra money could be
                    spent on improving street environments?

                    However, on the flip side, how much less would be available for heavy
                    and light rail, buses and maritime transport?

                    On 1 May 2006, at 17:46, eter@...,
                    Zimmer@...,
                    "[mailto:pzimmer@...]"@... wrote:

                    > ----Original Message-----
                    > From: Peter Zimmer [mailto:pzimmer@...]
                    > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 4:27 PM
                    >
                    > "Is it fair that traffic engineers and highway designers impute a
                    > value for motorists' time lost in traffic jams at $15 an hour, and
                    > never even bother to calculate the time losses imposed on
                    > pedestrians, the
                    >
                    > disabled and transit users, much less give them a fair, equal
                    > monetary value as they calculate costs and benefits?" ....
                    >
                    > I like it. Let's think about adopting this in Ecology Action
                    > Centre and our Transportation Issues Committee.
                    I like it. When can we have junctions that delay pedestrians less and
                    vehicles more?

                    --
                    Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                    transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
                  • Eric.Britton
                    Fair - Characterized by honesty and justice : Free from fraud, injustice, prejudice, or favoritism : Open, frank, honest; hence equal, just, equitable,
                    Message 9 of 10 , May 2, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Fair – “Characterized by honesty and justice : Free from fraud, injustice, prejudice, or favoritism : Open, frank, honest; hence equal, just, equitable, impartial., unprejudiced, ’ (Webster’s Unabridged, 2nd edition)

                       

                      (Dear Friends. We are getting some fine, very challenging comments, challenges and even some support for this idea coming in over the transom this week, some of which is reaching you here directly but all food for thought – which you will shortly have here in more comprehensive form with comments, along with an entirely redrafted set of background notes on our strange new term (for poof of its strangeness or at least unfamiliarity in this context, I propose you check it out on Google, stripping it away of course from all (that is most off it) which has nothing to do with our topic). In the meantime, I am pleased to share with you the following note from my esteemed colleague Professor Richard Allsop, who makes a point that I for one am not going to let slip.  “Fair Transport” may in time perhaps serve to extend and fine tune the phrase sustainable transport, but let me not kid myself. It is not about to wipe it out.  But more on that shortly. ericbritton. And oh yes, PS. One of the ideas behind this new phrase is to create a base for some form of high profile Fair Transport Labeling. But that too in due course.)

                       

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Richard Allsop
                      Sent:
                      Monday, May 01, 2006 11:08 PM
                      To: eric.britton@...
                      Subject: Fair Transport

                       

                       Dear Eric

                      I've read only your message and none of the broadcast responses, and am replying only briefly to wish you well in this venture.

                      I think the idea is great, but do not see it as a substitute for "sustainable transport", which to the extent that it means anything as generally used (which I think is doubtful) it does not mean the same as fair.   Seeking sustainability can be done fairly or unfairly, but there is nothing about seeking sustainability that is inherently fair (except perhaps between generations).  The fairness, if it is to be part of the process at all, has to be imposed as a constraint, just as in pursuit of other societal objectives.

                      As for "sustainable transport" as it has generally been used, it is a misnomer for which in my own writing and speaking I have tried to substitute "less unsustainable transport", which is at least achievable within our lifetimes, unlike "sustainable transport" in any sense of the word that I recognise.

                      So as a bonus additional to the massive importance of promoting equity in transport, you efforts may have the beneficial side-effect of reducing use of the term "sustainable transport".   Whether this will increase the proportion of sense written by many of its misusers is another matter!

                      All the best

                      Richard

                      Richard Allsop
                      Centre for Transport Studies
                      University College London
                      Gower Street
                      London WC1E 6BT
                      Phone     +44 20 7679 1555
                      Fax       +44 20 7679 1567
                      email     rea@...
                      www.cts.ucl.ac.uk
                      _________________________________________________________________________
                      ISTTT 17 London 2007

                      For details of the 17th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory
                      in
                      London visit www.isttt.org
                      ________________________________________________________________________

                       

                    • Anzir Boodoo
                      Eric, ... If you are thinking of a Fair Transport mark akin to the Fair Trade mark, there are several additional comments to make which relate solely to
                      Message 10 of 10 , May 4, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Eric,
                        On 2 May 2006, at 08:55, Eric.Britton wrote:
                        > (Dear Friends. We are getting some fine, very challenging comments,
                        > challenges and even some support for this idea coming in over the
                        > transom this week, some of which is reaching you here directly but
                        > all food for thought – which you will shortly have here in more
                        > comprehensive form with comments, along with an entirely redrafted
                        > set of background notes on our strange new term (for poof of its
                        > strangeness or at least unfamiliarity in this context, I propose
                        > you check it out on Google, stripping it away of course from all
                        > (that is most off it) which has nothing to do with our topic). In
                        > the meantime, I am pleased to share with you the following note
                        > from my esteemed colleague Professor Richard Allsop, who makes a
                        > point that I for one am not going to let slip. “Fair Transport”
                        > may in time perhaps serve to extend and fine tune the phrase
                        > sustainable transport, but let me not kid myself. It is not about
                        > to wipe it out. But more on that shortly. ericbritton. And oh yes,
                        > PS. One of the ideas behind this new phrase is to create a base for
                        > some form of high profile Fair Transport Labeling. But that too in
                        > due course.)
                        If you are thinking of a "Fair Transport" mark akin to the "Fair
                        Trade" mark, there are several additional comments to make which
                        relate solely to the mark itself.

                        In the UK, there has been some backlash against the Fairtrade
                        Foundation, who administer the mark, with a number of coffee and
                        chocolate producers particularly arguing that it is all very well to
                        say the trading of a product is done fairly, but that gives no
                        guarantee of the quality of the product (for proof of this, see some
                        of the lower end Fair Trade products such as some supermarket own
                        brands). In addition, the business ethics of the retailer can be seen
                        in some eyes to negate buying Fair Trade products from, say, Wal-
                        Mart, on an ethical perspective.

                        What this means from the perspective of "Fair Transport" is that in
                        theory there are two planes of conflict:

                        1. Are the people in charge of the accreditation trusted?

                        2. Is "Fair" always "Fair" regardless of who is operating the system?
                        Are there political or other reasons why something that might
                        otherwise be "fair" can justifiably be called "unfair"?

                        Perhaps I am overstating the problem here, but I think it's
                        potentially very serious. We could lose a lot of credibility very
                        early on if we (perhaps accidentally) upset the bees some people have
                        in their bonnets (I don't know how well that lot will translate).

                        To start off with, what I understand that you, Eric, propose here is
                        an overarching concept that can be quantified, at least in a way in
                        which it is possible to provide an accreditation that will be
                        recognised the world over.

                        May I suggest that instead of going down the potentially very
                        complicated route of deciding whether this bus service or that
                        cycleway package in fairer than the other, that we follow another
                        Fairtrade strand that is becoming popular in the UK at least by
                        accrediting "Fair Transport Towns" (and cities) where policies and
                        the implementation of plans have favoured a people centric approach
                        to transport. This would be awarded to the municipality and recognise
                        a complete integrated package and "attitude" towards urban transport.

                        Thanks
                        --
                        Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                        transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.