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

WBCSD report - general commentary

Expand Messages
  • Michael Yeates
    Dear Eric and all ... Before going to the Report, it is often useful to start such a discussion with some fundamentals ie including some attempts to create
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 19, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Eric and all ...

      Before going to the Report, it is often useful to start such a discussion with some fundamentals ie including some attempts to create some (or even a number of slightly different) semi-agreed definitions or descriptions, including of the "problems".

      While I suggest this with humility and trepidation, it can be said that too often, it is these "fundamental" concepts or meanings that are uncritically accepted or (mis)understood because they are not made explicit, if not better resolved.

      So what is "sustainable", "sustainability" and also should "more sustainable" be accepted but defined ie as incremental or temporal steps "in the right direction"?

      If these are (semi-)agreed, it is necessary to show where are they located and how do they relate to the Report ... as a starting point.

      Some basic "concerns" (coming from the very car dominated "world" of Brisbane, in Australia and for this discussion, excluding many other relevant issues, for example, global equity issues), relate to the following which need to be addressed by any claim to "sustainable" including the Report. Clearly, they may also provide indicators to measure achievements of goals over time.

      1. Despite tailpipe and energy (eg solar powered vehicles) improvements, we are still left with huge and totally unresolved questions and in my view "unsustainable" solutions relating to congestion and parking issues whether cars, buses, trucks, trains or aircraft related to expectations based on the movement of huge loads over huge distances.

      2. Thus we are also left with the danger, exclusion, barriers etc of high travel speed in various settings whether urban, suburban, rural or whatever ... and especially by aircraft.

      3. There is the carbon problem ... from local and regional ie pollution (C compounds and CO) right through to national, international and global (eg "greenhouse") but also the trade in cheap coal and other fuels.

      4. Others have mentioned it, but there is also the question of urban planning where current lifestyles either resist or encourage change from the status quo ... so extreme care needs to be addressed as to how land use <> transport "policy" is addressed otherwise we will all be able to find excuses (rationale) for being "less than sustainable" and primarily to reduce any incentive to change the current dominant behaviours, policies etc.

      5. This leaves (me with) the view that walking (including for people with mobility disabilities) and various forms of HPVs (human powered vehicles) are the ONLY modes with any claim to "sustainable mobility" (perhaps plus the addition of human or sail powered boats and some form of "sustainable aircraft" ) ...

      6. Interestingly, humankind is either "there", or has been there, as most cultures and cities predate car-dominance ... the urban form of cities can be reclaimed for people and HPVs at no cost if "car dominance" is removed or reduced.
        
      So do these "concerns" actually form the basis for a critique/debate of the issues of "sustainability" ... as once the discussion moves on, then it seems to be about something else ...eg how to get to "sustainability" or "moving towards more sustainability", or "becoming more sustainable" ?

      Perhaps the question of "sustainable transport" is about whether to depend on human or solar/wind/water energy and to prioritise human safety, health and development over all other issues ... or not?

      Surely we can accept that using public transport or car-pooling or car-sharing etc is NOT "sustainable", but rather is a move towards being "more sustainable" and then only under a whole raft of conditions, including not putting people using human power at any risk at all.

      The use of public transport or car-pooling or car-sharing etc does not encourage much change in the demand for these "less than sustainable" modes and/or therefore, may and probably will decrease, rather than increase, demand for less unsustainable lifestyles and settings ie "car free" urban areas may need to be "pedestrian priority" to ensure public transport or car-pooling or car-sharing etc do not provide a reason to continue to not give pedestrians and cyclists priority.
       
      Thus as this is almost impossible "sustainably", is using public transport etc, an answer, but perhaps to the wrong question?

      A considerable task but one that cannot be postponed if the issues are to be addressed.

      It should be technically possible to create a "car" that cannot harm or threaten pedestrians and cyclists.

      I can guess where this leaves the car industry as we see it in practice and in its history and tradition.

      A return to making simple, "sustainable", practical, disability aids, bicycles, and other HPVs?

      Michael Yeates
      Convenor
      Public Transport Alliance and Bicycle User Research Group
      Brisbane
      Australia

        

      At 07:19 PM 19/07/2004, eric.britton@... wrote:

      Monday, July 19, 2004, Paris, France, Europe

       

      Dear Friends,

       

      As you can see from the first round of responses in hours after the original call, we are off to a strong start.  Couple of quick organizational suggestions in an attempt to facilitate all this as we move ahead.

       

      1. Subject headings for systematic citation: After some discussion we propose the following subject headings for organizing future entries on what is likely to be a quite extensive commentary.  (Notes in parenthesis only for clarification here.)

       

      Overall subject heading: WBCSD report (bit shorter, hence better?)

      Discussion headings for consistent citation:

      ·         WBCSD report General commentary

      ·         WBCSD report Report contributions (to the debate, understanding and remedial action)

      ·         WBCSD report Targeting/Omissions

      ·         WBCSD report Error (factual or of interpretation)

      ·         WBCSD report Wit (including a series of short book blurbcomments by us to accompany eventual revised version publication)

      ·         WBCSD report Action recommendations to WBCSD (including to report sponsors, associates, etc.)

      ·         WBCSD report Next steps (Our recommendations)

      ·         WBCSD report Media leads (to get greatest impact of our hard work on this)

       

      My hope is that this structure may encourage you to comment on one or more of these, which clearly should feed rather nicely into any eventual report or recommendations.

       

      2. Self-identification: It would be much appreciated if with each posting you remind us as to your full name, title, organizational affiliation, etc.  Why? Because we want this to carry the weight of our considerable background and credentials.  This indeed is the power of this international peer review approach, making it I believe rather hard to ignore.

      3. Presentation of our materials: 
      All of this will inevitably be somewhat ragged, spread out and hard to access efficiently if we leave it for the Yahoo Forum alone -- so I will get to work on this in the next 48 hours and create a cleaner presentation on the New Mobility Agenda website.

       

      4. Schedule:  I propose that we aim to tie this up with a final report from this end (probably short with the whole discussion in annex) by the end of August from this end with attention to giving our friends at the ITDP as much as we/you conveniently can by their next week deadline. My hope is that this two level approach will serve the cause best.  (in fact it may lead to more levels than that, since these raw materials may find many good uses in many places.  Or so I very much hope.)

       

      Since all of this is still early days, if you have any suggestions about modifying or extending any of this better, please let me know off group via Eric.Britton@....

       
    • eric.britton@ecoplan.org
      Wednesday, July 21, 2004, Paris, France, Europe Dear Colleagues, The following note just in from Professor Peter Newman, a leading figure on the international
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 21, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Wednesday, July 21, 2004, Paris, France, Europe

        Dear Colleagues,

        The following note just in from Professor Peter Newman, a leading figure on
        the international sustainability scene and currently Chair of the Western
        Australian Sustainability Roundtable and Sustainability Commissioner in New
        South Wales (Australia)

        "Eric. I think the report is very disappointing as they do
        not follow their own rhetoric on eco-efficiency. I am a strong supporter of
        WBCSD on many things which it is pioneering but they are going nowhere on
        mobility.
        "It seems that mobility is the last sacred cow of modernism.
        We can apparently now decouple wealth from energy, from greenhouse, from
        waste but not from mobility. In our cities the wealthy are choosing to live
        where they can travel less and the poor are the mobile ones. Its not such a
        sacred cow if we push hard enough to show that there are real sustainability
        gains if we set stretch targets for reduced mobility. Peter Newman"

        To my mind this gives us a great starting place on what I regard as the
        strategic bottom line issues here - i.e., what are we trying to accomplish
        with all this anyway. Let me share my thoughts with you on this briefly:

        1. Like Peter I am a long time supporter of the WBCSD,
        glad that they are there and trying to do the tough job of doing something
        about the Great Sustainability Divide between the present-oriented economic
        interests of international business (think of it as" the old"), and their
        longer term responsibility to the planet and to the people who live on it
        (vs. "the new"). And indeed, there does seem to be an as yet unbridged
        problem when it is time for them to pick up their sustainability cudgels and
        apply them to the transport/mobility sector. Which of course is why we are
        all here today. TO help them with this.

        2. It is my view on this that, thus far at least, the
        price of real responsible behaviour is not only so new and so very
        different, but it is so high in terms of both their institutional mindset
        and $$$ that they will, as long as they can, continue to revert to this kind
        of rather old fashioned pre-narrowing and scenarios ploy when it comes to
        'facing the facts of sustainability and mobility'. My own quick back of the
        envelope calculation suggests that current arrangements are bringing in some
        ten(s) of billions of dollars into their coffers each day that nothing
        significant changes. (Under these circumstances, I rather think I myself
        would tend to hesitate a bit before inviting fundamental underlying change -
        which of course is what sustainable development is all about in this
        context.) Oops.

        3. The twelve companies that commissioned this work are
        not in fact sworn or explicit enemies of sustainable development and social
        justice, that would be all too simple and turn this into the latest run of
        "Dallas". It is just that they are basically still in a state of denial.
        Their report makes this clear of course - but at the same time they have to
        be asking themselves: "How could we have done better. We have addressed the
        issues, we have spent a lot of money and time in doing it, we have talked to
        a lot of people about it, we have produced a huge and beautiful report, and
        we have made our seven goal recommendations. What more could they ask for?"
        (Yes, but as we all know it is often for us middle class folks a lot easier
        to spend money than it is to go painfully back to square one and reassess
        every tough strand in a situation that is of great importance to us and that
        may require significant and possibly painful adjustments on our part (for
        example our relationship or lack thereof with our children, where it is all
        too often a lot easier to spend money for psychiatrics and ballet lessons
        than get off our butts and spend lots of time with them ourselves.)

        4. And our job, as I see it here, is to help them as
        kindly and positively as we can to lead them out of this state of denial and
        back to work in addressing the real and full panoply of issues and options
        that together constitute sustainable mobility. And in getting them off on a
        new path in their own thinking, not only in this respect but in fact more
        strategically for their businesses as a whole.

        5. With this 100% collegial if unrequested
        International Peer Review that is now getting underway, I am confident that
        all of those of us who are groped here have the information, the means, the
        wisdom and the human skills needed to help them in this. Moreover, in
        addition to the light that we can now help them with on the underlying
        issues of what mobility and the basic mobility trade-offs and options are
        all about, we can also and in parallel have a look at least two things which
        are in fact very much part of this broader problematique:

        a. $50 oil as an "ugly" current reality (and not some maybe out in some indefinite future), and
        b. Massive world overcapacity a-building in the auto sector.

        6. The importance of this last in our context is very
        great -- since the impact is that we can be quite certain that there is
        going to be a lot of big time losing going on in the sector in the future,
        including in the very near future. And it's my guess that any company or
        group that gets control of the real issues and gets ready to confront them
        without waiting to be pushed, is going to have a jump of the rest. And that
        jump can make the difference between survival and oops.

        7. To conclude: This is not a hair pulling contest and
        if we are to accomplish anything of real value it will have to be with
        knowledge, firmness and compassion. We want to bring the WBCSD, the twelve
        sponsors, and behind them a lot of other people and groups to the table of
        what we might call for lack of anything better the New Mobility Agenda. In
        the most positive way possible.

        That at least is my current take on what is going on here.

        Eric Britton
      • eric.britton@ecoplan.org
        I agree with Eric Britton s overview of the situation [sustran - 21 July 04]. While it s tempting to attack and bash, knowledge, firmness and compassion are
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 21, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          I agree with Eric Britton's overview of the situation [sustran - 21 July
          04].

          While it's tempting to attack and bash, "knowledge, firmness and
          compassion" are more effective (not that we see much of it these
          days). Further, if business interests are to support sustainability
          they should have some good business reasons to do so.

          Two thoughts:

          1) Even not considering the broader social and environmental
          consequences, which can be blurred by promises of zero-pollution, renewable energy powered vehicles; the car-centered approach falls short in 1 key area
          that any business-person can see in their bottom-line: congestion. Despite
          the SACTRA report now being 10-years old, the average person still sees
          road-building as the solution to congestion. It would seem the WBCSD
          also needs some convincing.

          2) Car ownership is an emotional issue, as well as (for now) a profit
          powerhouse. We would do well to disconnect car ownership from
          use. (Thirty years ago business opposed energy conservation measures,
          saying energy use and economic production were linked. No longer. )
          Car ownership per 1000 persons is used as an index of car-centricity of a
          city. Better to aim measures at the actual trips taken, and
          specifically those during congested periods. Let the individual then decide about owning a car.

          Both of these points support an emphasis on demand management. While
          there are many methods (see Todd Litmann's on-line encyclopedia at
          www.vtpi.org/tdm), one of the most effective is user charging, which
          London's successful congestion charging scheme has brought to the
          forefront. A good business analysis of road user pricing -- inspired
          by London's success -- was provided last year by Deloitte Consulting; see
          http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/press_release/0,2309,sid%253D%2526cid%253D28
          904,00.html.


          Best,
          John


          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          John Ernst - Director, Asia Region
          ITDP - The Institute for Transport and Development Policy
          Subscribe to ITDP's Sustainable Transport e-update at www.itdp.org
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        • S.Norton@dpmms.cam.ac.uk
          Just a couple of comments. First, Michael Yeates puts forward the fundamentalist position (whereby all fuelled transport is considered to be unsustainable)
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 23, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Just a couple of comments.

            First, Michael Yeates puts forward the "fundamentalist" position (whereby all
            fuelled transport is considered to be unsustainable) as an option. I think that
            it should be explicitly rejected as it will get in the way of allowing us to
            move away from car culture.

            One of the goals we should be looking towards is to make it easier for people
            who don't have access to a car to get around. If we start talking of trying to
            reduce emissions from buses and trains it won't help us.

            However, in response to John Ernst, I do feel we have to tackle the problem of
            car ownership. For these reasons:

            1. Car manufacture uses a lot of resources.
            2. Car garaging uses a lot of space.
            3. If people have invested a lot of money in buying a car, they are not likely
            to forswear its use.
            4. My belief is that a move from individual to shared car ownership if the biggest single step one can make towards making transport sustainable.

            Simon Norton,
          • ericbruun@earthlink.net
            Date: Sat Jul 24, 2004 5:19pm Re: follow up to Simon Norton I agree with Prof. Norton. I want to go even further. Well meaning environmental groups don t
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 24, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Date: Sat Jul 24, 2004 5:19pm
              Re: follow up to Simon Norton

              I agree with Prof. Norton. I want to go even further.

              Well meaning environmental groups don't think through these issues. As a
              member of the Sierra Club, I have been very frustrated by their transit
              bashing. They actually support efforts to put the blame for dirty air on
              transit. They will take a fundamentalist position of their own sort.
              Diesel is evil, CNG is good. Efforts to explain that

              a) transit vehicles are a very small fraction of total vehicles
              b) that natural gas vehicles put out more greenhouse emissions than
              diesels,
              c) diesels can and are being cleaned up - Euro 4 is a reality
              d) diesel-electric hybrids outperform CNG in every way
              e) CNG actually forces a cut in service for an equal operating budget
              since they usually cost more to operate

              all fall on deaf ears.

              While opposing diesel-electric hybrids, well intended people introduced
              legislation favoring gasoline-electric hybrid cars. In California,
              legisilation was introduced (and I think it passed) that allows
              single-occupant hybrid cars to use the HOV lanes. Efforts to explain
              that

              a) hybrids are not more efficient than many other small cars in motorway
              driving
              b) hybrids don't need a boost as there are waiting lists to buy them
              c) letting cars in HOV lanes slows down transit and decreases transit
              ridership

              all fall on deaf ears. I also note that the Governator, Arnold
              Shwarzenegger, repealed a new tax on autos as soon as he entered office
              but apparently supported this hybrid bill. These kinds of bills are
              great to pretend that you care about the environment, and the
              environmental community is providing these opportunities.

              This is why I don't volunteer much any more.

              I would also like to recommend www.phillycareshare.org as an example of
              a well-run non-profit car sharing model.

              Eric Bruun
            • Michael Yeates
              Hi Eric (Bruun) ... I have no disagreement or complaint with your views or those of Professor Norton, indeed they are crucial components of the discussion.
              Message 6 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Eric (Bruun) ...

                I have no disagreement or complaint with your views or those of Professor Norton, indeed they are crucial components of the discussion.

                However, if you return to my email (see following to locate it) and Eric's, you will see that I also suggest that, as others have also pointed out, the role of high-speed (ie dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists) vehicles needs to be addressed, as does parking and congestion issues, along with  the health and well-being and urban economic development issues.

                These also need to be addressed to agree on the description of "sustainable transport", do they not?

                Interestingly, a few days ago, our local media reported the development of cars than can sense pedestrians (and cyclists?) and not crash into them. That is another advance but what do we do with all the existing and yet to be produced cars and trucks etc, in the interim?

                So as I said at the end of my previous email ....

                It should be technically possible to create a "car" that cannot harm or threaten pedestrians and cyclists.

                I can guess where this leaves the car industry as we see it in practice and in its history and tradition.

                A return to making simple, "sustainable", practical, disability aids, bicycles, and other HPVs?

                It seems to me that "sustainable transport" in urban areas at least must allow and  meet these criteria.

                regards

                Michael Yeates

                My previous email is at ...

                To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
                From: Michael Yeates <michaelm@...>
                Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:11:15 +1000
                Subject: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum] WBCSD report - general commentary
                Reply-To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com

                ericbruun@... wrote:

                Date: Sat Jul 24, 2004 5:19pm
                 Re:  follow up to Simon Norton
                I agree with Prof. Norton. I want to go even further.
              • Tramsol@aol.com
                Michael & all Might I suggest creating an environment in which all vehicles and human movement is regulated by the need to establish permission to proceed .
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 26, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Michael & all

                  Might I suggest creating an environment in which all vehicles and human movement is regulated by the need to establish 'permission to proceed' .  In the absence of road markings, and other 'clkues to suggest priority, this has to be by eye contact, and since the species homo sapiens has, through evelotion become resilient to impacts (falling over, running in to trees etc), at their maximum running speed (note that a 4 minute mile= average speed of 15mph, so a sprint speed will be ... guess).  Likewise the ability to make eye contact and perception of activity/hazard over the full field of vision diminshes rapidly as speed goes above... maximum running speed.  I'll post here a neat summary of an appearnce by Ben Hamilton-Bailey on Radio 4 Today Programme during a debate on traffic calming.

                  "Limiting urban speed has social utility. It’s not just about going slower but about being able to see people. Ben Hamilton-Baillie’s urban street design is predicated on removing all the bossy street furniture and road markings and having no-one go faster than 17mph. The ambiguity about right of way induced by loss of signage makes motorists more careful – if not of walkers and cyclists – then of the damage they can suffer at the hands of other motorists. This has the magical effect of reducing speed overall to a maximum of around around 17 mph, where there’s consensus among those studying primate behaviour that this is the top speed at which it is possible to get and hold eye contact and so give and receive signals of intention"

                  A further option to bring down urban speeds is to limit the top speed of large vehicles which operate solely in the urban area, and thus have no requirement to exceed the speed limit in that area.  The current Euro 3 engines fitted to buses, and refuse trucks etc can be set to limit top speed to a displayed 30mph (often around 27mph in practice), whilst having no restriction on performance up to that speed,  and the added ability with electrionically controlled automatic gearboxes, to set the speed at which gear chnges take place to avoid 'hunting' between gears around the limited top speed.  Epsom Coaches, who run London Buses (TfL) contracts entirely within a 30mph limit report less driver stress, no speeding offences (!), and reduced vehicle damage (mostly avoiding the out of service positioning journeys made at excessive speed, by drivers well aware of how far they can push the vehicle around corners etc without the concern of pasenger comfort!).  The presence of large vehicles moving at maximum speed limit provides a moving speed limiter, which, if around in reasonable numbers on roads where overtaking opportunitiues are limiited, will drastically reduce the median speed, and unlike vertical deflections these speed controls can pull-over to let emergency vehicles past..

                  Request

                  An appeal also  (off-list responses please).  I'm making a case aginst the on-street proposals for a tram in West London, in favour of Civis-style/Curitiba-type guided buses with tram-size passennger capacity.  This would deliver  

                  1) reduced risks as exemplified by the Roe vs Sheffield Supertram case (car skidded on tram tracks and driver brain damaged in crash) plus 2 cyclist deaths and many injuries (Sheffield).

                  2) reduced construction costs (diversion of services etc)

                  3) reduced construction period and disruption

                  4) reduced maintenance costs (points and track cleaning etc)

                  5) lfexibility of use and routes. (the core route can be electrified but turn-backs, and lower intensity extensions to the core network, can use existing roads, or low cost busways).  The use of the route by other services, and conversion of all bus services to electric operation along core routes are also possible

                  Given also the reported York (route 6) success of the Electrocity bus (running on battery only in the central zone) and diesel recharge on outer zones with 25-75 duty cycle, I would also want to examine the pseudo tram options for dual power/hybrid vehicles.

                  Oh and a PS for Eric/Parisienne posters, I gather that the Paris Olympic bid includes a fleet of c.100,000 bikes to provide individual transport between hire stations.  System uses Homeport units (as does OYBike in London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham).  Any details on Paris welcomed - I think it links with the existing 2000-4000 RATP hire bikes and the fleet of "Roue Libre" bike hire buses.

                  PPS just heard - BBC Radio 4 debate on Friday (Straw Poll) "The private Sector in UK does not know how to run the railway system"  Could be fun, and we get to vote too....

                  Dave Holladay
                  Transportation Management Solutions - working with CTC on Public Transport Campaigns           

                  (Glasgow)                                             (CTC HQ)
                  6 Woodlands Terrace                                 69 Meadrow
                  Glasgow                                               Godalming
                  G3 6DH                                          GU7 3HS

                  0141 332 4733                 Phone                0870 873 0060
                  0141 354 0076                 Fax              0870 873 0064

                                             07710 535 404     Mobile

                  Send/copy e-mail for CTC matters to dave.holladay@...
                  CTC - Working for Cycling since 1878
                  (CTC - Cyclists Touring Club)
                • eric.britton@ecoplan.org
                  Tuesday, July 27, 2004, Paris, France, Europe If you go to the New Mobility Agenda today at http://newmobility.org you will see that we are now fully ready to
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jul 27, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Tuesday, July 27, 2004, Paris, France, Europe

                    If you go to the New Mobility Agenda today at http://newmobility.org you will see that we are now fully ready to host the exchanges in support of our International Peer Review of the WBCSD report. I hope you find it not only interesting as a read and collective commentary on their report, but far more important that it may provide a starting point to help clarify once and for all what we need to do now to put the sustainable mobility agenda into highest profile and full gear.  The two pillars that our friend John Whitelegg is wont to call: transport policy and practice.  I will not repeat here the details of how this is organized, other than to say that we have tried to give it a provocative, easy to use structure, which is explained on the opening page. 

                    It is our fondest hope that the positive, inclusive nature of this Open Society Initiative will be understood and embraced by all involved. It will be particularly important that the members of the WBCSD and especially those groups directly involved in the report join in here and get actively involved in this dialogue. The idea is very definitely not one of accusation/response, but of cooperative knowledge building in an open, collegial and, if we do say, rather new way. The world needs new ideas and new practices in many areas, and our currently and most spectacularly unsustainable mobility system is certainly one of these.

                    If you happen to be in touch with or have contact information for any of the authors or supporting groups, it would be good to have their emails so that we can invite htem to join in.

                    Kind thanks and let's hear from you.

                    Eric Britton

                     

                  • Michael Yeates
                    Thanks Eric for this excellent and extremely important initiative (see below). The first steps to developing better understanding include making the various
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jul 27, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks Eric for this excellent and extremely important initiative (see below).

                      The first steps to developing better understanding include making the various views explicit and therefore available for critique.

                      So it is interesting that, in the following quote, GM's Executive Vice President Tom Gottschalk, a project co-chair, says "(t)he challenges to sustaining mobility are significant," he said, "but they can be met over time, provided society supports constructive approaches and solutions and encourages real understanding and cooperation among stakeholders." He added, "This report contributes positively toward that goal."

                      While people say (and write) things that have multiple (and often unintended) meanings, it is important to question whether Mobility 2030 has been prepared from the view that promotes "sustaining mobility", rather than "sustainable transport".

                      Depending on the meaning of "sustaining mobility", the following sections in the above quotation suggest rather different outcomes in terms of "sustainable transport" in the period up to and beyond 2030.

                      One reading is almost a "business-as-usual with technological responses" which is exactly the demonstrated expertise of the car industry over its history and potentially continues if not increases the "concerns" raised by "sustainable transport" rather than "more sustainable transport".

                      In following through the need to clarify the different meanings, perhaps Tom might like to clarify these issues as a participant in the project and the current discussions.

                      Michael Yeates
                      Convenor, Public Transport Alliance and Bicycle User Research Group
                      Brisbane, Australia

                      "Mobility 2030" was given extensive media coverage and publicly greeted as a significant contribution to thinking about sustainable mobility by some of the more important international industry and energy agencies and associations. According to GM's Executive Vice President Tom Gottschalk, a project co-chair, the report is intended to be a catalyst. "The challenges to sustaining mobility are significant," he said, "but they can be met over time, provided society supports constructive approaches and solutions and encourages real understanding and cooperation among stakeholders." He added, "This report contributes positively toward that goal." [ from http://www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/wt_index.htm ]
                    • Todd Alexander Litman
                      Here are my general comments on the WBCSD report and how it can be improved. * There should be a clear discussion of the differences and tensions between
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jul 29, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Here are my general comments on the WBCSD report and how it can be improved.

                        * There should be a clear discussion of the differences and tensions
                        between mobility and accessibility. It should be clear that most mobility
                        is intended to provide accessibility (excepting travel that is purely for
                        pleasure, without a destination); that accessibility is affected by
                        mobility, land use patterns and accessibility substitutes
                        (telecommunications and delivery services); and that efforts to increase
                        mobility often reduce accessibility (e.g., sprawl, barrier effect from
                        wider roads, declining walking conditions and transit services) (see
                        http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf).

                        * The conventional paradigm perceives a set of distinct problems
                        (congestion, air pollution, accidents, inadequate mobility for non-drivers,
                        etc.) each of which can be solved given additional investments and design
                        improvements. What I think is missing is a realization that often the
                        solutions to one of these problems exacerbates other problems. For example,
                        many efforts to reduce vehicle energy consumption by increasing fuel
                        efficiency reduce the per-mile cost of driving, resulting in increased
                        congestion and accidents, and efforts to reduce congestion by removing
                        "choke points" will increase mileage and therefore air pollution.
                        Sustainable transportation therefore requires a process for taking into
                        account these secondary impacts in transport policy analysis and planning
                        (see http://www.vtpi.org/reinvent.pdf).

                        * From this perspective, mobility management strategies that correct
                        current market distortions that result in economically-excessive automobile
                        travel and sprawled land use patterns are a key approach to creating more
                        sustainable transportation. Some of these are relatively easy to implement,
                        and they provide numerous benefits, including reduced congestion,
                        accidents, air emissions, consumer savings, and improved mobility for
                        non-drivers. They include higher fuel taxes, pay-as-you-drive vehicle
                        insurance, direct parking pricing, road pricing, and smart growth market
                        reforms (see http://www.vtpi.org/winwin.pdf and http://www.vtpi.org/tdm).






                        Sincerely,
                        Todd Litman, Director
                        Victoria Transport Policy Institute
                        "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
                        1250 Rudlin Street
                        Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
                        Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
                        Email: litman@...
                        Website: http://www.vtpi.org
                      • Sujit Patwardhan
                        31 July 2004 Clicking on the link for the PDF files generates an error message. If anyone faced a similar problem I would suggest you delete the closed para
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jul 31, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          31 July 2004


                          Clicking on the link for the PDF files generates an error message.

                          If anyone faced a similar problem I would suggest you delete the "closed
                          para" sign appearing at the end of the file name in the browser, and click
                          again. The PDF file then opens.

                          Thought I would pass this on to those who may have had similar difficulty.

                          --
                          Sujit





                          At 07:16 PM 7/29/2004, you wrote:


                          >Here are my general comments on the WBCSD report and how it can be improved.
                          >
                          >* There should be a clear discussion of the differences and tensions
                          >between mobility and accessibility. It should be clear that most mobility
                          >is intended to provide accessibility (excepting travel that is purely for
                          >pleasure, without a destination); that accessibility is affected by
                          >mobility, land use patterns and accessibility substitutes
                          >(telecommunications and delivery services); and that efforts to increase
                          >mobility often reduce accessibility (e.g., sprawl, barrier effect from
                          >wider roads, declining walking conditions and transit services) (see
                          >http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf).
                          >
                          >* The conventional paradigm perceives a set of distinct problems
                          >(congestion, air pollution, accidents, inadequate mobility for non-drivers,
                          >etc.) each of which can be solved given additional investments and design
                          >improvements. What I think is missing is a realization that often the
                          >solutions to one of these problems exacerbates other problems. For example,
                          >many efforts to reduce vehicle energy consumption by increasing fuel
                          >efficiency reduce the per-mile cost of driving, resulting in increased
                          >congestion and accidents, and efforts to reduce congestion by removing
                          >"choke points" will increase mileage and therefore air pollution.
                          >Sustainable transportation therefore requires a process for taking into
                          >account these secondary impacts in transport policy analysis and planning
                          >(see http://www.vtpi.org/reinvent.pdf).
                          >
                          >* From this perspective, mobility management strategies that correct
                          >current market distortions that result in economically-excessive automobile
                          >travel and sprawled land use patterns are a key approach to creating more
                          >sustainable transportation. Some of these are relatively easy to implement,
                          >and they provide numerous benefits, including reduced congestion,
                          >accidents, air emissions, consumer savings, and improved mobility for
                          >non-drivers. They include higher fuel taxes, pay-as-you-drive vehicle
                          >insurance, direct parking pricing, road pricing, and smart growth market
                          >reforms (see http://www.vtpi.org/winwin.pdf and http://www.vtpi.org/tdm).
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >Sincerely,
                          >Todd Litman, Director
                          >Victoria Transport Policy Institute
                          >"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
                          >1250 Rudlin Street
                          >Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
                          >Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
                          >Email: litman@...
                          >Website: http://www.vtpi.org
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >The New Mobility/World Transport Agenda
                          >Consult at: http://wTransport.org
                          >To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
                          >To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Sujit Patwardhan
                          PARISAR
                          "Yamuna", ICS Colony,
                          Ganeshkhind Road,
                          Pune 411007
                          Telephone: 255 37955
                          Email: <parisar81@...> or <sujit@...>
                          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.