- Hi, A small contribution. We have to move (I suggest) from an energy/emissions perspective on this to a wider total impact perspective. It is remarkableMessage 1 of 14 , Jul 24, 2006View SourceHi,
A small contribution. We have to move (I suggest) from an energy/emissions
perspective on this to a wider "total impact" perspective. It is remarkable
that after 30 years or more of general debate about transport and
environmental impacts we still miss/downplay things like:
land take (and the impact of loss of land for transport infrastructure on
food production and biodiversity)
fragmentation (a tiny land take is a 100% change in character if it
physically divides and separates a formerly unified area)
landscape (see Ian McHarg)
noise (see excellent analyses from World Health Organisation)
fiscal matters (who says that spending billions on roads or high speed
trains is a good way to allocate resources against competing demands in
health care, education, poverty, pensions etc)
social justice (what proportion of our transport spending benefits the top
10% income band? We have some evidence in the UK that 30% of spending
benefits the top 10%)
children..are our transport systems and cities child friendly. Definitely
transport and health. is there a connection between the Uk with the highest
rate of child obesity in Europe and the highest rate of kids being taken to
school by car in Europe?
there is lots more!
energy and emissions are important but we have to be careful to factor in
very best wishes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Schipper" <SCHIPPER@...>
To: <jay@...>; <WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum Comment on WTPP Vol 12, No. 3
> I had a great ride on the Brisbane line in 2003 * I dont think there is a
simple way of measuring footprints * in Australia,
> China, India, the majority of electric power comes from coal. Is that
> Lee Schipper
> Director of Research
> EMBARQ, the WRI Center
> for Sustainable Transport
> Washington DC
> +1202 729 7735
> >>> jay@... 7/23/2006 1:27 PM >>>
> Hi Ken,
> What do you think about the Bus Rapid Transit system in Brisbane, AU?
> While I prefer rail, it seems that the BRT system offers a lot in the
> way of flexibility. Also, when running on the alternative fuels or even
> electricity, I believe it can be very clean in regards to emissions.
> Although I am not versed in the impact of roads. If anyone has any
> insight in regards to the impact of road building vs. rail construction
> (and also the effects of tunneling), I would be much appreciative.
> Jay Corrales
> Move San Diego Board of Directors
> San Diego, CA, USA
> Ken.Crispin wrote:
> > We would like to see more focus on rail rather than road, as it is the
> > much cleaner environmentally sustainable mode of transport that leaves
> > a smaller footprint on the environment also.
> > Ken Crispin. Project Manager.
> > Citizens Environmental Advocacy Centre In'c.
> > Napier. NZ.
> > clean.air@... <mailto:clean.air@...>
> The New Mobility/World Transport Agenda
> Consult at: http://NewMobiity.org
> To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
> To subscribe: WorldTransportemail@example.com
> To unsubscribe: WorldTransportfirstname.lastname@example.org
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- John & all I recall a conversation recently with someone who did a cost-benefit analysis on alternative uses of the land used for transport infrastructure -Message 2 of 14 , Jul 24, 2006View SourceJohn & all
I recall a conversation recently with someone who did a cost-benefit analysis on alternative uses of the land used for transport infrastructure - neatly summed up by a member of Manchester Airport's Ground Transport Planning team who said their policy on reducing the amount of car parking available for a growing number of passengers & staff using the site "We get a better return on the land when it is used for retail and hotels instead of car parking" - can we put figures to this?
Maybe we can as the last days of the GLC saw some studies carried out on major corridors like the A41 Finchley Road where residential roads had been buldozed to create a 6-8 lane dual carriageway out to the M1. I cannot recall exactly which review showed a positive and which one showed a neutral figure for which corridor, but in essence it would actually be a profitable exercise to rip up the second carriageway and rebuild the houses, which would be 'worth' more than the road... Some of the more venerable contributors might recall this in greater detail?
In this part of Glasgow a complete residential building (town house/tenement) of 4-5 floors prior to refurbishment seems to be getting in excess of £1m, and eyeing up the great swathe of land taken out by the City Centre motorway I just wonder how the sums might work out today, when compared to the 1960's when property in the area was cheap.
- In a message dated 7/24/2006 2:29:29 PM British Summer Time, ... Maybe a return to the external combustion engine where heat is generated and used at theMessage 3 of 14 , Jul 24, 2006View SourceIn a message dated 7/24/2006 2:29:29 PM British Summer Time, ab@... writes:
I believe even to supply
diesel trains with biodiesel will require a huge investment in
processing facilities as those that exist already are stretched to
Maybe a return to the external combustion engine where heat is generated and used at the driving mechanism - having recently listened to a piece on BBC Radio 4 about the modern steam engine (purer water, higher pressure, no boiler scale, and full secondary combustion with injected steam in the firebox to better manage the burning process). Do I see the ghost of Bulleid and the Leader Class.....
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:19:15 +1000 To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com From: Michael Yeates Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum Comment onMessage 4 of 14 , Jul 28, 2006View Source
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:19:15 +1000
As a resident of Brisbane, I hope nobody takes offence at the following and hope it will result in ongoing detailed critical review rather than international conferences and other promotional material that promotes our Busways without reference to impacts and context.
I totally agree with the points John raises below which were to all intents completely ignored in the initial decisions by government in regard to transport planning and provision in SEQ (including the Busways) and thus continue to be ignored ..
So Brisbane has Busways, but it is also about to spend over $2 billion on a tunnel for more convenient travel by car ... and there are several more tunnels planned .. also for cars ...! This of course was predictable ... see http://www.yeatesit.biz/transfiles/busways.pdf
Did anybody consider how this would impact on children walking or cycling to school, to illustrate just one of John's points below?
Put simply, it is far too easy to focus on the easier or more politically acceptable parts of integrated planning rather than "integrate" the complexity of issues ... and in many ways, the energy<>pollution issues are relatively easy for as is well known, if not often accepted by politicians and other interested decision makers, traffic prediction is not exactly accurate or even reasonably reliable.
Put another way, as Bent Flyvbjerg et al and others have shown, these big projects rarely if ever have legitimate well researched and well supported justification that is then monitored and evaluated critically and independently over time so not surprisingly the benefits are exaggerated and the costs underestimated or ignored ... exactly what is happening in Brisbane with its billion dollar Busways and billion dollar tunnels ... paradoxically, all designed (not necessarily intentionally or explicitly) for more cars on the roads ....
For example soon after the first Busway was opened, an informal platform survey found that most of the passengers either (i) worked at or near the outer end major regional retail centre (ie Garden City at Upper Mt Gravatt) and were primarily using the busway for additional non-essential trips that they would never have done before the Busway or (ii) drove to the Busway often a longer distance than previously (another form of induced travel) and quite a few of these had transferred from using rail (30 minute frequency) to using the much higher frequency buses on the Busway but relying on the very large and very expensive Park'n'Ride parking because there was so little improvement in service levels of local buses as a result of the Busway. Why? Because virtually all the buses went into the CBD on the Busway.
Aside from recent transport conferences held in Brisbane with a focus on the Busways, there has been an enormous effort put into publicising the Busways in Brisbane and beyond.
But at the same time, there has been almost no critical review so it is not surprising that people see the aspects that have been promoted.
There is however some information about the busways provided via investigations by the Queensland Parliament Public Works Committee (see http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/committees/committees.asp?area=PWC&LIndex=7&SubArea=PWC )
see PWC Report 39 and a further report (which reduced criticism) at PWC Report 42 at http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/committees/committees.asp?area=PWC&LIndex=7&SubArea=reports&Bindex=3
Transcripts of public hearings can be found at
Also, while there has been rhetorical support for "integrated" public transport, in fact nearly 10 years later, very few buses go close to the some 70 train stations in Brisbane because the bus system still remains extremely radial ... a point further exaggerated by the Busways ... thus the buses and Busways operate in opposition to, rather than in "integrated" support of, the already high capacity rail system.
So not surprisingly, there is a major congestion problem with buses in the CBD approaches and an increasingly greater layby and float problem .. the solution to which is building more Busways (extensions underway in the CBD right now).
But like cars, more buses simply congest the roads once their useful role and performance is exceeded ... so SEQ is rapidly becoming a case study well worth considering as to whether BRT and an emphasis on buses is simply the result of conceptual thinking that sees buses as more efficient cars ... and Busways as freeways for buses ...!
But in addition, Brisbane now has a series of related problems ... not enough buses ... but then it is argued, there is nowhere for more buses as the CBD and approaches are already congested ...!
Busways are no different to freeways and motorways ... they provide a dream of unlimited capacity, flexibility and utility when opened but end up congested and in need of increased capacity ... .
Until the points that John makes below are also included, rail will be seen as too expensive and inflexible by those who regard buses as large cars ...
You might also find it useful to see what has been said eg
Paul Mees at http://www.brisinst.org.au/resources/brisinst_publictrans.html
Peter Newman at http://www.brisinst.org.au/resources/newman_peter_busway.html
and some of my own articles at
These are sourced from a collection of articles at http://www.brisinst.org.au/resources/brisbane_institute_transportseries.html
The local newspaper is "The Courier-Mail" which has current news at http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/queensland and recent news at http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/archives
So if anyone wants a research topic of local<>global interest and importance, come to Brisbane and have a long critical look ... but please, if you really want to get behind the rhetoric and marketing/promotional hype, be prepared to try to travel without relying on using a car.