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

Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Transit barriers

Expand Messages
  • Michael Yeates
    There are also a number of negative costs (although they appear in the positive in GNP and GDP but as real costs in Green Economics ) such as crash costs and
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 3, 2007
      There are also a number of negative costs (although they appear in the positive in GNP and GDP but as real costs in "Green Economics") such as crash costs and repairs (of vehicles, people and property). If included, then roads (as a system as currently used) are FAR more expensive and possibly if not probably more expensive than other modes ...

      Also, in Australia at present, it is fashionable to cite the costs of time lost due to congestion as a reason for and in support of building more roads (to reduce congestion) so this then appears as a saving and thus a positive benefit when more road capacity is being promoted.

      But surprise, surprise, it does not appear as a positive benefit when other modes are promoted or costed ... and neither do the health benefits, reduced crash costs, etc etc that must result if more people use the alternatives instead of their cars.

      It is also worth the entertainment value if nothing else that can be gained by suggesting that fuel (of all types) should be taxed to recover the FULL cost of motoring per mile/km travelled ... rather than having much of the real cost "lost" in other social subsidies such as hospitals, doctors, etc to name just one category ...

      There is no end to the arguments about what should or should not be included in the costings ... but the annual global road toll is a reasonable indicator that something is not quite right about how we currently manage the killing modes ...

      I don't mind cycling a kilometre or two to the heavy rail station when there are trains every 15 minutes or better ... despite a bus almost outside my house that has a frequency at best of about 45 minutes and normally hourly ... the car still costs a lot in fixed costs if left in the garage, but that is the result of having cheap petrol and high fixed costs, rather than the other way round.

      MY.................

      At 02:30 AM 4/09/2007, Richard Layman wrote:

      In the U.S., roads are subsidized by about 40%, as gasoline taxes, registration fees, tolls and other "user fees" don't cover all the costs incurred for construction and maintenance..  When this is raised, then the pro-sprawl types raise the point about subsidy/VMT.
      Report from Brookings by Martin Wachs: http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/wachstransportation.htm
       
      When people make the point that transit is subsidized, I merely counter that so are roads, and for a much larger amount.
       
      RL

      David Stein <daristein@...> wrote:

       
      Fare hikes and service cuts in Chicago as well as in other older devel oped cities around the world are unfortunately an ongoing phenomenon.
       
      However, getting around the traditional transit service model would prove difficult given that the basic ground-rules for transit provision must overcome many costly hurdles and combined with these various regulations are the political as well as labor-related pressures. It is then really absurd that certain legislative members to expect transit to turn a profit. Likely, these are people who either have no understanding or stakes in transit service -- or both. It seems that only the prospects of having a "New Start" in a regions where transit use is nearly non-existant is what gains political interest-- and thus as an economic development tool rather than a pure mobility solution.
       
      Perhaps one real solution could be found by having major employers and retailors provide transit service to fit the needs of specific destination groups  -- like those traveling to either a concentrated downtown, emplyoment center, factory site or shopping center. In some cases, companies could even pool together to give transit a major source of revenue.
       
      I know that this is already in practice but am unaware of other specific examples other than that IKEA has a bus service in Vienna from the Opera House to its mall location (one of the biggest in Europe) outside the city.
       
      D. Stein

       

      Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:52:29 +0000
      From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
      To: Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Digest Number 979

      The New Mobility Idea Factory

      Messages In This Digest (6 Messages)



      1.
      transport subsidies From: Simon Norton
      2a.
      Chicago Transit Fare Hike From: On Behalf Of Christopher Kost
      2b.
      AW: [NewMobilityCafe] Chicago Transit Fare Hike ... Public Transit a From: Conrad Wagner
      3.
      Reinventing Transport in Cities:  Pillar 1- Public transport should From: eric.britton@...
      4.
      Reinventing Transport in Cities: Pillar 1- Public transport should b From: eric.britton@...
      5.
      Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia (SUMA) News Digest 03 September 2 From: Aurora Fe Ables
      View All Topics | Create New Topic

      Messages



      1.

      transport subsidies




      Posted by: "Simon Norton" S.Norton@...   simonphillipsnorton




      Sun Sep 2, 2007 11:20 pm (PST)


      I think that the UK (outside London) has been a leader in the proposition that
      public transport can be self financing, with conspicuous lack of success. The
      attempt to make the national rail network self financing in the 1960s led to
      disastrous and apparently irrevocable cuts to parts of the network of strategic
      importance, and the same happened to the buses in the 1980s and 1990s -- and is
      continuing today.
      Simon Norton

      Back to top
      Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      Messages in this topic (1)
      2a.

      Chicago Transit Fare Hike




      Posted by: "On Behalf Of Christopher Kost" On Behalf Of Christopher Kost   fekbritton




      Sun Sep 2, 2007 11:20 pm (PST)


      On Behalf Of Christopher Kost
      Brendan,
      You raise good points, but the assumption that the transit-dependent
      can pay more than cheap is problematic.
      At least in the U.S., many public transport users are very poor. In
      Los Angeles, the median household income for bus riders is $12,000.
      (The median household income in the city as a whole is $43,000.) A
      family with that income buying, say, two adult monthly passes and two
      student passes will end up spending a similar proportion of its
      income on transportation to that spent by those who own cars. So even
      the current "low" fares aren't giving poor people much of a break.
      I agree that the first-best solution would be to use welfare
      channels, but that's difficult in the current political climate in
      the U.S., so in the meantime I think it makes sense to keep fares low.
      Regards,
      chris
      On Sep 1, 2007, at 8:41 AM, Brendan Finn wrote:
      > Dear Eric, Sujit,
      >
      > I have argued many times against cheap fare policies (i.e.
      > deliberate under-pricing) and that transit should be as close to
      > self-financing as it can achieve. I have argued three main points :
      >
      > 1) All choice users and many non-choice users have the
      > affordability to pay more than "cheap", and most would be willing
      > to do so for better quality. Under-priced transit uses up the
      > available funds for wealth-transfer, leaving little for quality
      > improvements or reinvestment. Public funds should be spent on
      > service, quality and infrastructure, not on low fares.
      >
      > 2) The vulnerable within society can be supported by subsidising
      > transit passes for them (rather than for all users) and this should
      > be done through welfare funding channels rather than transit
      > funding channels. This better protects the funding source since
      > politicians and administrators would have to overtly remove welfare
      > from those who need it, at risk of heavy political backlash.
      >
      > 3) Cheap fares require heavy subsidies, and these inevitably tend
      > to keep growing. The transit is then totally at the mercy of the
      > funder. Sooner or later, an administration will come in who decides
      > to cut the subsidy program. They can dress it up in many ways -
      > national austerity measures, correct 'inefficiency and
      > profligacy' (as Eric quotes), moving to a user-pays principle,
      > etc., etc. - we are all familiar with these dreaded sea-changes.
      > Tariffs increase dramatically, services are thinned out and quieter
      > routes closed, customer support programs are slashed, investment is
      > put on hold, quality programs are shelved, important management

      > functions are shut down, and confrontation arises with labour as
      > hard measures are forced through. Patronage is lost, good working
      > relationships are lost, the development effort of a few decades
      > goes down the drain, and the innovators and developers in the
      > management team are pushed aside for the bean-counters. Instability
      > and down-sizing kil
      > l user confidence in a way that takes decades to recover.
      >
      > Chicago seems to be yet another example of the vulnerability of
      > transit once subsidy becomes a significant part of its income
      > stream. I have no moral or economic argument against subsidy for
      > transit - the more public funds the better, if used wisely.
      > However, it is a Faustian Pact, and a day of reckoning eventually
      > comes. Transit planners and managers should think long and hard
      > about the bargains they enter - they owe it to their customers,
      > their city and their workers.
      >
      > With best wishes,
      >
      >
      > Brendan.
      > __________________________________________________________
      > _______________
      >> From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@... tel :
      >> +353.87.2530286
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: eric.britton@...
      > To: sustran-discuss@...
      > Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:10 AM
      > Subject: [sustran] Chicago Transit Fare Hike
      >
      >
      > Dear Sujit and Sustran friends,
      >
      > Don't think that our Chicago CTA friends have made these moves
      > with joy in their hearts. The fact is that they have been trapped
      > by state legislators (many of whom have their power base in rural
      > and small town areas) who have decided to, in a phrase, "punish the
      > CTA for their inefficiency and profligacy". Typically "old
      > mobility" and terrib ly wrong headed, but if this were only the only
      > city and agency that this kind of thing were to take place this
      > would be a happier planet.
      >
      > In point of fact I have just come back from a lively week on
      > brainstorming session with a group of more than forty experts and
      > agencies around the table, where we gave our full attention to the
      > possibility of "Reinventing Transport in Chicago". You can see
      > more of that if interested in our New Mobility/Climate Emergency
      > Project at www.climate.newmobility.org <http://
      > www.climate.newmobility.org/> , where I hope shortly to post some
      > useful information on these sessions.
      >
      > In the meantime, you may fond some us in the "Workpad" that you
      > will find on the bottom left menu of this site in process.
      >
      > Eric Britton
      >
      > 1 September 2007
      >
      > While we feel encouraged by the excellent proposals initiated by
      > the Mayor of New York, here is what I got from a friend about
      > Chicago. I was under the
      > impression that Chicago was one of the better cities in the US in
      > providing transit facilities.
      > --
      >
      > Sujit
      >
      > Here is the news:-
      >
      > To make up for poor revenues in recent years, the Chicago Transit
      > Authority's board has approved *fare hikes *and changes to services-
      > to include the shutting down of 39 bus routes. Bus and off-peak

      > train fares paid in cash will rise from $2 to $2.50. During peak
      > hours, train fares will become $3. The price of the one-day travel
      > pass will increase from $5 to $6; the seven-day pass from $20 to
      > $23; and the 30-day pass from $75 to $84. The changes go into
      > effect on September 16th.
      > --------------------------------------------------------
      > --------------------------------------------------------
      > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
      > YAHOOGROUPS.
      >
      > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-
      > discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership
      > rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members'
      > there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the
      > yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the
      > confusing arrangement.
      >
      > ================================================================
      > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
      > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
      > countries (the 'Global South').
      --------------------------------------------------------
      IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
      YAHOOGROUPS.
      Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join
      the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups
      version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real
      sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can).
      Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
      ================================================================
      SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
      equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
      (the 'Global South').

      Back to top
      Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      Messages in this topic (4)
      2b.

      AW: [NewMobilityCafe] Chicago Transit Fare Hike ... Public Transit a




      Posted by: "Conrad Wagner" w@...   conradwagner28




      Mon Sep 3, 2007 3:38 am (PST)


      Hi all
      Don't misuse Public Transit politically as a Social Program . Public Transit
      must be managed as a usual business to show expected services and quality.
      To make Public Transit affordable give Transit Vouchers to those who need to
      be supported using Public Transport.
      So, Transit vouchers can be part of the social political discussion. But let
      Public Transit as a business stay out of Social programs. Don't mix it all
      up .
      Saludos, hasta pronto, Chao, Conrad
      ----------------------------------------------------------
      Conrad Wagner
      Mobility Systems
      Stansstaderstrasse 26
      6370 Stans, Switzerland
      &#
      43;41 +76 3917151 Mobile / Voicemail
      +41 +41 6101742 Tel / Fax
      <mailto:w@... > w@...
      Skype Audio / Video: conradwagner
      _____
      Von: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
      [ mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] Im Auftrag von On Behalf Of
      Christopher Kost
      Gesendet: Sonntag, 2. September 2007 15:59
      An: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: Amy Malick; Karl Peet
      Betreff: [SPAM] [NewMobilityCafe] Chicago Transit Fare Hike

      On Behalf Of Christopher Kost
      Brendan,
      You raise good points, but the assumption that the transit-dependent
      can pay more than cheap is problematic.
      At least in the U.S., many public transport users are very poor. In
      Los Angeles, the median household income for bus riders is $12,000.
      (The median household income in the city as a whole is $43,000.) A
      family with that income buying, say, two adult monthly passes and two
      student passes will end up spending a similar proportion of its
      income on transportation to that spent by those who own cars. So even
      the current "low" fares aren't giving poor people much of a break.
      I agree that the first-best solution would be to use welfare
      channels, but that's difficult in the current political climate in
      the U.S., so in the meantime I think it makes sense to keep fares low.
      Regards,
      chris
      On Sep 1, 2007, at 8:41 AM, Brendan Finn wrote:
      > Dear Eric, Sujit,
      >
      > I have argued many times against cheap fare policies (i.e.
      > deliberate under-pricing) and that transit should be as close to
      > self-financing as it can achieve. I have argued three main points :
      >
      > 1) All choice users and many non-choice users have the
      > affordability to pay more than "cheap", and most would be willing
      > to do so for better quality. Under-priced transit uses up the
      > available funds for wealth-transfer, leaving little for quality
      > improvements or reinvestment. Public funds should be spent on
      > service, quality and infrastructure, not on low fares.
      >
      > 2) The vulnerable within society can be supported by subsidising
      > transit passes for them (rather than for all users) and this should
      > be done through welfare funding channels rather than transit
      > funding channels. This better protects the funding source since
      > politicians and administrators would have to overtly remove welfare
      > from those who need it, at risk of heavy political backlash.
      >
      > 3) Cheap fares require heavy subsidies, and these inevitably tend
      > to keep growing. The transit is then totally at the mercy of the
      > funder. Sooner or later, an administration will come in who decides
      > to cut the subsidy program. They can dress it up in many ways -
      > national austerity measures, correct 'inefficiency and
      > profligacy' (as Eric quotes), moving to a user-pays principle,
      > etc., etc. - we are all familiar with these dreaded sea-changes.
      > Tariffs increase dramatically, services are thinned out and quieter
      > routes closed, customer support programs are slashed, investment is
      > put on hold, quality programs are shelved, important management
      > functions are shut down, and confrontation arises with labour as
      > hard measures are forced through. Patronage is lost, good working
      > relationships are lost, the development effort of a few decades
      > goes down the drain, and the innovators and developers in the
      > management team are pushed aside for the bean-counters. Instability
      > and down-sizing kil
      > l user confidence in a way that takes decades to recover.
      >
      > Chicago seems to be yet another example of the vulnerability of

      > transit once subsidy becomes a significant part of its income
      > stream. I have no moral or economic argument against subsidy for
      > transit - the more public funds the better, if used wisely.
      > However, it is a Faustian Pact, and a day of reckoning eventually
      > comes. Transit planners and managers should think long and hard
      > about the bargains they enter - they owe it to their customers,
      > their city and their workers.
      >
      > With best wishes,
      >
      >
      > Brendan.
      > __________________________________________________________
      > _______________
      >> From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@... tel :
      >> +353.87.2530286
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: eric.britton@...
      > To: sustran-discuss@...
      > Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:10 AM
      > Subject: [sustran] Chicago Transit Fare Hike
      >
      >
      > Dear Sujit and Sustran friends,
      >
      > Don't think that our Chicago CTA friends have made these moves
      > with joy in their hearts. The fact is that they have been trapped
      > by state legislators (many of whom have their power base in rural
      > and small town areas) who have decided to, in a phrase, "punish the
      > CTA for their inefficiency and profligacy". Typically "old
      > mobility" and terribly wrong headed, but if this were only the only
      > city and agency that this kind of thing were to take place this
      > would be a happier planet.
      >
      > In point of fact I have just come back from a lively week on
      > brainstorming session with a group of more than forty experts and
      > agencies around the table, where we gave our full attention to the
      > possibility of "Reinventing Transport in Chicago". You can see
      > more of that if interested in our New Mobility/Climate Emergency
      > Project at www.climate.newmobility.org <http://
      > www.climate.newmobility.org/> , where I hope shortly to post some
      > useful information on these sessions.
      >
      > In the meantime, you may fond some us in the "Workpad" that you
      > will find on the bottom left menu of this site in process.
      >
      > Eric Britton
      >
      > 1 September 2007
      >
      > While we feel encouraged by the excellent proposals initiated by
      > the Mayor of New York, here is what I got from a friend about
      > Chicago. I was under the
      > impression that Chicago was one of the better cities in the US in
      > providing transit facilities.
      > --
      >
      > Sujit
      >
      > Here is the news:-
      >
      > To make up for poor revenues in recent years, the Chicago Transit
      > Authority's board has approved *fare hikes *and changes to services-
      > to include the shutting down of 39 bus routes. Bus and off-peak
      > train fares paid in cash will rise from $2 to $2.50. During peak
      > hours, train fares will become $3. The price of the one-day travel
      > pass will increase from $5 to $6; the seven-day pass from $20 to
      > $23; and the 30-day pass from $75 to $84. The changes go into
      > effect on September 16th.
      > --------------------------------------------------------
      > --------------------------------------------------------
      > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via

      > YAHOOGROUPS.
      >
      > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-
      > discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership
      > rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members'
      > there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the
      > yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the
      > confusing arrangement.
      >
      > ================================================================
      > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
      > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
      > countries (the 'Global South').
      --------------------------------------------------------
      IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via
      YAHOOGROUPS.
      Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join
      the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups
      version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real
      sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can).
      Apologies for the confusing arrangement.
      ================================================================
      SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
      equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
      (the 'Global South').

      Back to top
      Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      Messages in this topic (4)
      3.

      Reinventing Transport in Cities:  Pillar 1- Public transport should




      Posted by: "eric.britton@..." eric.britton@...   fekbritton




      Mon Sep 3, 2007 12:38 am (PST)


      With all due respect Brendan, and I do very much appreciate those three
      important points you bring up (see below), I really do believe that the time
      has come in which we have to set aside just about all of our traditional
      thinking and practices about how we finance and deliver transport in cities
      and in the process come up with a whole new game plan. The Chicago
      experience, so very typical in many respects, makes it clear above all to me
      that we simply cannot afford to tinker any longer with the old models,
      which clearly are not working by any of a thousand balanced criteria.
      The emerging new model, which many of us here are trying very hard to help
      bring out from the woodwork, the so-called New Mobility Agenda, is
      predicated on an entirely different set of assumptions, one of them being
      that a whole dynamic range of seamless "non-own-car" services are needed,
      that these can and will be provided by a much broader spectrum of players
      than in the old binary mobility model, and that one of these has to be a
      basic underpinning of available-to-all public services which are in effect a
      "free" or at the very least a fully seamless public utility.
      And yes of course I am well aware of the abuses that such free services can
      lead to, and this note will not be the place to elaborate or to defend the
      basic concept. I might add however that in my view at least the services
      should not be altogether free, since it is important for many reasons to
      have full feedback about system use and patronage trends, etc., which means
      some kind of smart card, and this it seems to me to be fair and good to ask
      people to pay for.
      The end goal has to be to get the very great majority of private cars out of
      the city, and in order to achieve that we are going to have to provide
      "better than car" mobility systems. Hop-on, hop-off transit is part of this
      necessary package, an essential foundation stone for the rest.
      How to pay for it? How to deliver it? And how do you, how do we assure the
      necessary rigors of good management? What other kinds of services are
      needed to fill out the mobility spectrum, and what do we need to do to we
      get them on board?
      These are the kinds of question that we should be asking ourselves. And
      finding cities and city leaders who want to get involved in making this new
      model of transport and society. This has to be a teamwork undertaking
      Eric Britton
      PS. Some of you may wish to check out our in-process Reinventing Transport
      in Cities site at www.climate.newmobility.org
      < http://www.climate.newmobility.org/> . In addition to the Workpad examples,
      more will appear there shortly on the on-going Chicago rethink.
      -----Original Message-----
      On Behalf Of Brendan Finn
      Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 2:42 PM

      Dear Eric, Sujit,
      I have argued many times against cheap fare policies (i.e. deliberate
      under-pricing) and that transit should be as close to self-financing as it
      can achieve. I have argued three main points:
      1) All choice users and many non-choice users have the affordability to pay
      more than "cheap", and most would be willing to do so for better quality.
      Under-priced transit uses up the available funds for wealth-transfer,
      leaving little for quality improvements or reinvestment. Public funds should
      be spent on service, quality and infrastructure, not on low fares.
      2) The vulnerable within society can be supported by subsidising transit
      passes for them (rather than for all users) and this should be done through
      welfare funding channels rather than transit funding channels. This better
      protects the funding source since politicians and administrators would have
      to overtly remove welfare from those who need it, at risk of heavy political
      backlash.
      3) Cheap fares require heavy subsidies, and these inevitably tend to keep
      growing. The transit is then totally at the mercy of the funder. Sooner or
      later, an administration will come in who decides to cut the subsidy
      program. They can dress it up in many ways - national austerity measures,
      correct 'inefficiency and profligacy' (as Eric quotes), moving to a
      user-pays principle, etc., etc. - we are all familiar with these dreaded
      sea-changes. Tariffs increase dramatically, services are thinned out and
      quieter routes closed, customer support programs are slashed, investment is
      put on hold, quality programs are shelved, important management functions
      are shut down, and confrontation arises with labour as hard measures are
      forced through. Patronage is lost, good working relationships are lost, the
      development effort of a few decades goes down the drain, and the innovators
      and developers in the management team are pushed aside for the
      bean-counters. Instability and down-sizing kill user confidence in a way
      that takes decades to recover.
      Chicago seems to be yet another example of the vulnerability of transit once
      subsidy becomes a significant part of its income stream. I have no moral or
      economic argument against subsidy for transit - the more public funds the
      better, if used wisely. However, it is a Faustian Pact, and a day of
      reckoning eventually comes. Transit planners and managers should think long
      and hard about the bargains they enter - they owe it to their customers,
      their city and their workers.
      With best wishes,
      Brendan.
      __________________________________________________________
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: eric.britton@...
      Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:10 AM
      Dear Sujit and Sustran friends,
      Don't think that our Chicago CTA friends have made these moves with joy in
      their hearts. The fact is that they have been trapped by state legislators
      (many of whom have their power base in rural and small town areas) who have
      decided to, in a phrase, "punish the CTA for their inefficiency and
      profligacy". Typically "old mobility" and terribly wrong headed, but if this
      were only the only city and agency that this kind of thing were to take
      place this would be a happier planet.
      In point of fact I have just come back from a lively week on brainstorming
      session with a group of more than forty experts and agencies around the
      table, where we gave our full attention to the possibility of "Reinventing
      Transport in Chicago". You can see more of that if interested in our New
      Mobility/Climate Emergency Project at www.climate.newmobility.org
      < http://www.climate.newmobility.org/> , where I hope shortly to post some
      useful information on these sessions.
      In the meantime, you may fond some us in the "Workpad" that you will find on
      the bottom left menu of this site in process.
      Eric Britton
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Sujit Patwardhan
      Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 10:10 AM
      While we feel encouraged by the excellent proposals initiated by the Mayor
      of New York, here is what I got from a friend about Chicago. I was under the
      impression that Chicago was one of the better cities in the US in providing
      transit facilities.
      --
      Sujit
      Here is the news:-
      To make up for poor revenues in recent years, the Chicago Transit
      Authority's board has approved *fare hikes *and changes to services-to
      include the shutting down of 39 bus routes. Bus and off-peak train fares
      paid in cash will rise from $2 to $2.50. During peak hours, train fares will
      become $3. The price of the one-day travel pass will increase from $5 to $6;
      the seven-day pass from $20 to $23; and the 30-day pass from $75 to $84. The
      changes go into effect on September 16th.

      Back to top
      Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      Messages in this topic (1)
      4.

      Reinventing Transport in Cities: Pillar 1- Public transport should b




      Posted by: "eric.britton@..." eric.britton@...   fekbritton




      Mon Sep 3, 2007 2:56 am (PST)


      Dear Brendan,
      I don't want to get overly stuck on the world "free" here, a source probably
      of more heat than light,. So let me just pop in a few thinking points on
      this in an attempt to explore all this a bit more and perhaps more
      creatively;
      1. Private cars do not "work" in most of our cities -- so the
      alternative mobility model should be based on other kinds of services, and
      specifically a rich range of travel options that together can provide
      "better than cars" access (and economics) to all concerned.
      2. High quality service - which is what we need - is going to cost
      money.
      3. Cities with mobility systems that work well have healthier local
      commerce, higher real estate values and tax bases than those that do not.
      4. "Public transport" (more or less fixed route, fixed schedule
      services) should be as seamless as we can make it. This means that users
      should have easy access and that barriers such as fare boxes need to be
      removed.
      5. Well working transport services of all kinds require tight
      information feedback loops, bringing us straight to smart cards of various
      types.
      6. There are a growing number of cities around the world that are
      actually delivering free transit services today. And I am rather sure that
      these are not anomalies nor guilty of soviet-style inefficiencies. (See
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-fare_public_transport for some more on
      this.. A bit rough but still a useful first point of reference if needed.))
      7. The Paris Carte Orange experience is one interesting experience to
      ponder (there are plenty of others but what is particularly interesting
      about the Carte is that it has been around for a long time and has in many
      ways shown the way). The Carte is financed through a number of revenue
      streams, of which the actual traveler contribution is less than half.
      8. There are, as you and others point out, lots more poor people
      depending on public transit in most places (the usual captive riders) which
      certainly suggests that it would be unfair and potentially dangerous to hit
      them with the full bill for transit. And they deserve high quality
      transportation.
      9. All of which suggest to me that we need to put on our thinking hats
      and really give attention to new ways of financing and accessing transport.
      Fortunately the present systems that we have in most places are so terribly
      expensive and so grossly underperforming on just about all bases, that it is
      in fact an easy model to improve on.
      What I am trying to get at here is that we will do very badly if we fail to
      take these points into account as we rethink our transportation arrangements
      . Which we very definitely should be doing.
      Best/Eric
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Brendan Finn [ mailto:etts@...]
      Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:48 AM
      Subject: Re: Reinventing Transport in Cities: Pillar 1- Public transport
      should be free
      Dear Eric,
      I think we are at cross-purposes here. Let me spell out the two main
      concerns I have about free or under-priced transit :
      1) Sooner or later, an incoming government will change the ground rules and
      either pull the funding or deregulate the market, with devastating and
      long-lasting effect. The only question is whether it will be a drastic
      shock, or death by a thousand cuts. The issue is vulnerability caused by
      dependency, and the history of urban areas and public transport is littered
      with such casualties.
      2) Funding free public transport is very inefficient, since a huge amount of
      money is required just to keep basic services going. But most users have the
      affordability and willingness to pay fares, especially for a good quality
      product. (Perhaps the USA is an exception, if only the socially marginalised
      ride the bus). For example, if bus services in Dublin were free, it would
      require an annual subsidy of over $200 million just to keep the current
      service working. Nonetheless, the money is gone just to give them what they
      have already (and grumble about). Consider, by contrast, the dramatic impact
      of the same $200 million annually spent on a combination of BRT and
      bus-lanes, short-term subsidy to launch new routes, more buses to guarantee
      a seat, customer-care programs, subsidy for revenue losses due to fare
      integration. Spend the money where it has the most impact, both on the
      quality of service and capturing the public's attention.
      Today's public transport already costs money. If you want 'better than car',
      it's going to cost an awful lot more. People are willing to pay for
      everything else - bread, shoes, electricity, going to the movies. Finding a
      balance between what the user pays, and who pays for what (users pay for
      operations, society invests in infrastructure and improvements) is not
      'old-thinking', it's in line with everything else in life.
      With best wishes,
      Brendan.

      Back to top
      Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      Messages in this topic (1)
      5.

      Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia (SUMA) News Digest 03 September 2




      Posted by: "Aurora Fe Ables" au.ables@...   auables




      Mon Sep 3, 2007 3:39 am (PST)


      Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia (SUMA) News Digest
      Vol. 4 Issue 16
      03 September 2007
      SUMA News Digest is a free weekly e-mail publication that features
      news, information, and events related to sustainable urban
      transportation in Asia.
      To contribute articles, news items, or event announcements for the
      next issue, send an email with the complete details and URL source to
      suma-news-owner@... with subject "FOR SUMA NEWS".
      mailto:suma-news-owner@...?subject=FOR_SUMA_NEWS .
      Past issues from Feb 2007 are found at http://groups.google.com/group/suma-news
      * * * * *
      HEADLINES
      MANILA, PHILIPPINES: Manila looks forward to high-speed bus service
      28 Aug 2007 By Aurora Fe Ables, CAI-Asia Center
      The dream of Metro Manila commuters to enjoy the comforts of a new bus
      rapid transit (BRT) system, similar to TransMilenio in Bogotá,
      Colombia and TransJakarta in Jakarta, Indonesia has just moved closer
      to reality, as the results of a pre-feasibility study was received
      positively by Ms. Anneli Lontoc, Undersecretary for Transportation of
      the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) on Friday,
      10 August 2007.
      http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72058.html
      BEIJING, PR CHINA: Beijingers split over air quality exercise
      28 Aug 2007 China Daily
      The four-day Beijing air quality exercise held earlier in the month
      was met with mixed reaction. Diverse opinions were expressed by
      private car owners and public transport users.
      http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/olympics/2007-08/28/content_6061902.htm
      CEBU, PHILIPPINES: Planning officers blame narrow roads, funeral
      processions, lack of political will
      31 Aug 2007 Sun Star
      ALMOST as many cars run in Metro Cebu as in Manila, but Cebuano
      authorities are not improving the major roads, said Cebu City Planning
      and Development Officer Paul Villarete.
      http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/08/31/news/planning.officers.blame.narrow.roads.funeral.processions.lack.of.political.will.html
      PUNE, INDIA: Compressed Natural Gas Supply For Pune
      31 Aug 2007 Press Information Bureau of India and NGV Global
      The city of Pune in India's state of Maharashtra look set to have
      compressed natural gas (CNG) available for natural gas vehicles (NGVs)
      by November this year, with as many as 29 stations expected to be
      operational by the end of 2008.
      http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72083.html
      BEIJING, PR CHINA: China Drafts Laws to Curb Pollution
      27 Aug 2007 by Lindsay Beck, Reuters News Service
      China began deliberating a draft law aimed at boosting energy saving
      and emissions reductions on Sunday, its latest effort to curb
      widespread resource waste and degradation.
      http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72068.html
      JAKARTA, INDONESIA: Jakarta air the best it's been since 2000: Agency
      25 August 2007 Adianto P. Simamora, The Jakarta Post, City News
      Jakartans have experienced more days of "good" air quality this year
      than in the same period of any other year since 2000, the city
      environmental management agency says.
      http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72066.html
      KARACHI, PAKISTAN: Govt told to take steps for smooth traffic flow: SC
      wants report by 27th
      21 Aug 2007 By Shujaat Ali Khan, The Dawn
      The Supreme Court asked the city district government, the traffic and
      regular police, the Defence Housing Authority and other civic agencies
      and the cantonment boards on Tuesday to remove all encroachments in
      their jurisdictions forthwith 'in accordance with the law' and prevent
      roadside parking to ensure smooth flow of traffic in the city.
      http://dawn.com.pk/2007/08/22/local1.htm
      Vehicle Import Doubles In Nepal
      15 Aug 2007 By Gopal Joshi, Clean Energy NEWS Vol. 7, Number 38,
      Import of vehicles has more than doubled this year compared to the
      last two years (2062/2063). According to the Birgunj tax office, 5468
      four-wheel vehicles of worth Rs. 3717 million entered Nepal in the
      year 2006/07, compared to 2146 in the previous year.
      http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72046.html
      More air quality and sustainable mobility news at
      http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/propertyvalue-14783.html
      * * * * *
      INTERESTING FINDS
      Facing the Environmental Challenge: Urban Transportation and the
      Millennium Development Goals (2006)
      Dr. Walter Hook's article that appears in Global Urban Development
      Volume 2 Issue 1 March 2006 aims to clarify targets and goals for
      transport interventions to help achieve the Millenium Development
      Goals. The main focus is on urban transport interventions, but the
      same goals can be set for rural transport.
      http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72067.html
      Presentations from JARI Roundtable 2003-2007 now available
      Japan Automobile Research Institute is very pleased to inform you that
      all the presentation materials of JARI Roundtable 2003-2007 are ready
      for download. The presentation materials are available in both English
      and Chinese.
      http://www.jari.or.jp/en/rt_en/index.html
      Environmental Benefits of Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology in
      Transit (2007)
      The U.S. Federal Transit Administration has released a report that
      explores potential reductions in pollutant emissions and fuel
      consumption that could be achieved through greater adoption of
      alternative fuels including compressed natural gas, liquefied natural
      gas, and biodiesel, and advanced vehicle technologies such as hybrid
      electric drive systems in the national transit bus fleet.
      http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-72051.html
      Accelerated Leaded Gasoline Phase-out in Metro Manila, Philippines: A
      Partnership Effort
      Global Lead Network has included this effort in Metro Manila among its
      Best Practices. Note that the new Executive director for Partnership
      for Clean Air is Mr. Jules Peñales, pca@.... Partnership
      for Clean Air is at Manila Observatory
      Ateneo de Manila Campus, Loyola Hts, Q.C. 1101 PHILIPPINES; Tel: +632
      426-5921 to 23; Fax: +632 426-6141. PCA Online discussion group
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PartnershipforCleanAir/
      * * * * *
      MARK YOUR CALENDARS
      URBAN TRANSPORT 2007 - Thirteenth International Conference on Urban
      Transport and the Environment in the 21st Century
      3-5 September 2007, Coimbra, Portugal
      http://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2007/urban07/
      Urban Sustainability Conference (USC)
      12-13 September 2007 Berlin City Hall, Germany
      http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-71919.html
      The 10th International IEEE Co nference on Intelligent Transportation
      Systems (ITSC '07)
      Seattle, Washington, USA
      Sep 30 - Oct 3, 2007
      http://140.98.193.79/tc/its/itsc2007/index.html
      13th Small Engine Technology Conference: 'Sustainable Mobility,
      Energy
      Conserving for the Future
      30 October- 1 November 2007, Toki Messe, Niigata, Japan
      http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-71217.html
      Michelin Challenge Bibendum 2007
      14-17 November 2007, Shanghai, China
      http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-71218.html
      ANGVA 2007: 2nd Conference and Exhibition
      27-29 November 2007, Bangkok, Thailand
      http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-71221.html
      See the CAI-Asia events calendar at http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/propertyvalue-13577.html
      * * * * *
      THANKS to Bert Fabian, Li Shuang, Keiko Hirota, Gopal Joshi, Glynda
      Bathan, and Sven Harpering for their inputs and Jaja Panopio for
      uploads. - Aurora Fe Ables, Editor, SUMA News; Transport Specialist,
      CAI-Asia Center
      * * * ABOUT SUMA * * *
      The Sustainable Urban Mobility in Asia (SUMA) program of the Clean Air
      Initiative for Asian Cities ( www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia), Asian
      Development Bank (www.adb.org), EMBARQ-the World Resources Institute
      Center for Sustainable Transport ( http://embarq.wri.org ), GTZ
      Sustainable Urban Transport Project ( www.sutp.org), Interface for
      Cycling Expertise (www.cycling.nl), Institute for Transportation and
      Development Policy ( www.itdp.org), and United Nations Center for
      Regional Development ( www.uncrd.or.jp/est) is made possible through
      the generous support of the Swedish International Development
      Cooperation Agency (www.sida.se).
      SUMA works with Asian countries and cities to strengthen the
      formulation and implementation of sustainable urban transportation
      policies, specifically in (i) improving urban air quality by adopting
      AQM planning in sustainable transport policies, (ii) improving road
      safety by encouraging non-motorized transport and public transport,
      and (iii) reducing transport's contribution to climate change by
      adopting a co-benefits approach with urban air quality management.

      Back to top
      Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
      Messages in this topic (1)
      Visit Your Group
      Yahoo! Finance
      It's Now Personal
      Guides, news,
      advice & more.
      Yahoo! 360°
      Start Now
      Your place online
      Share with friends
      Yahoo! Groups
      Be a Better Planet
      Share with others
      Help the Planet.
      Need to Reply?
      Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
      Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web
      Messages | Links | Database | Polls |
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.