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

Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Not quite “Public trans port” in 21st century

Expand Messages
  • Anzir Boodoo
    Stephen, ... I think this is important... suburban centres should be reinforced where possible, it s all part of the land use linkage we should be thinking
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 29, 2006
      Stephen,
      On 24 Jan 2006, at 17:00, Stephen Plowden wrote:

      > The best form of public transport depends on the size, density and
      > form
      > of the town. I suggest that scheduled line services are likely to be
      > best for a dense town or city with a strong centre at least if the
      > city
      > is not too large. Who runs then is another matter, and different
      > arrangements have been shown to work, but if they are bus services an
      > attractive model is for the city to set the timetables and fares
      > and put
      > the operation out to contract. Different contractors in different
      > parts
      > of the city will bring some of the advantages of competition. .
      >
      > Don't let's forget walking and cycling. A well laid out town should
      > have as many as possible of the facilities required for daily
      > living in
      > each neighbourhood, accessible on foot. Low speed limits all over the
      > town and other measures to make cycling safe will encourage cycling
      > even
      > for long journeys

      I think this is important... suburban centres should be reinforced
      where possible, it's all part of the "land use linkage" we should be
      thinking about. xTransit should concentrate on these short journeys
      in cities to get people to the town centre or suburban centre where
      they can easily pick up a fast and frequent transit service. I would
      hope that a layer of such services would allow full sized buses to be
      concentrated onto key routes. Dial a ride or shared taxis would seem
      to me entirely appropriate for areas which get hourly or half hourly
      bus services, so the buses freed can be put onto increasing
      frequencies from main centres (after all, getting hundreds of shared
      taxis into a busy city centre seems pretty ridiculous a proposition
      to me, and counter to our thinking on improving roadspace and
      envronmental efficiency)

      This is all about giving people the choice to do what suits them best...

      Hypothetical situation 1. I go to the city centre to buy a table.

      I am in no desperate hurry, so I walk 15 minutes to the nearest
      suburban centre. There I pick up a frequent bus or tram into town.
      After a while of walking around the department stores, I find
      something I like. There's no free delivery, so I decide to take it.
      The store calls a shared taxi, which picks up me and the table from
      their pick up point, then heads to a transport interchange at the
      edge of the city displaying the name of the area I live in. With any
      luck, a couple of other people will want to get on, and we can head
      down on our merry way, dropping everyone off.

      Integration again has to be the key. I might choose to struggle
      getting furniture back on the bus (and I have previously brought
      small storage units back from Ikea on buses, and a friend once helped
      me take an iMac home by bus (interesting as the bus was one with a
      pole in the middle of the doorway and the box only just fitted in).
      However, once I have my transit ticket (because I tend to use transit
      every day), I should be able to pay either a small supplement to jump
      on a shared taxi, or be able to get a ticket with entitlement to use
      shared taxis.

      I know this means regulation, but the business of shared taxi
      provision strikes me as being a little unpredictable for both
      operators and passengers. Some element of local government help would
      be, well, helpful. It can replace things like dial a ride (for the
      elderly and disabled), as all vehicles would be wheelchair
      accessible, and include community transport providers both as
      operators and also to allow their vehicles to be kept on the road
      when they're not using them at low marginal cost. This bit would, in
      the UK, require a change in legislation to allow.

      Cooperation between community transport organisations is not new -
      there is now a shared maintenance facility for community transport in
      Sheffield, for example, which is run by one group and provides low
      cost maintenance facilities as it operates on a not for profit basis.

      --
      Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
      transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF
    • Lee Schipper
      The joker in the deck is contained in what Eric said. If you only put in a new engine, but not a completely new power train, you risk a total mismatch of
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 2, 2006
        The joker in the deck is contained in what Eric said. If you only put in
        a new engine, but not a completely new power train, you risk a total
        mismatch of power, power train, and load. For example, repowering an old
        bus with just a new engine will lead to far less than optimal
        performance

        We in EMBARQ retrofitted buses in Mexico City -- the 2001 buses had a
        huge decline -90% n an already low PM emissions, as measured by Chris
        Weaver's RAVEM. WE got something like 0.02 gm/km using ultra low sulfer
        diesel (15 PPM) and JM particle filters. Older 1991 buses got a 20-30%
        reduction in PM from a much higher level -- the numbers are on EMBARQs
        web site. These older buses only had diesel oxidation catalysts, because
        the partile filters would not work right on them. Original fuel, btw,
        was 350 PPM, clean by Manila standards.

        Our take away from this -- retrofit (with some repowering), or
        replace!

        >>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> 2/1/2006 5:40:47 PM >>>
        To add to what Walter said:

        I think that it is not the bus chassis so much that is at issue, but
        the drive train. A bus that is not corroded and well-maintained can have
        a new or rebuilt engine installed at mide-life and it will function
        largely like a new one up to 15 years old. After that, they start to
        have lots of other maintenance issues, as well, as the engine and
        transmission.

        If it is not a purpose-built bus, but a truck chassis with a bus body
        added, its life will be much shorter than 15 years, no matter what.
        Anything without air suspension, and that frequently operates overloaded
        will destroy both the chassis and the drive train.

        Also, retrofitting a particulate trap onto the exhaust is one of the
        single most important things to do! Particulates are where diesels are
        inferior to petrol and CNG engines. This is the type of foriegn aid that
        should be given immediately.

        One more thing. It is unrealistic to expect a service that operates
        without subsidies and where the owner/operator is living at a subistence
        level to maintain buses well. If I were them, I would choose feeding my
        family over cleaning the fuel injectors and air filters. So, pollution
        can not be separated from the operating economics that prevail. In my
        opinion, anyone who supports laizzez faire for public transport doesn't
        care about the environment very much.

        Eric Bruun


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Walter Hook
        Sent: Feb 1, 2006 10:06 AM
        To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'
        Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year
        oldpublictransport buses clean?


        v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}o\:*
        {behavior:url(#default#VML);}w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}.shape
        {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Clean Clean DocumentEmail
        MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } /*
        Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table
        Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
        mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in
        5.4pt 0in
        5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times
        New Roman";} I am not an expert in this, but i do know that in most
        US cities transit authorities receiving money from the US Federal
        Transit Admin must use buses 10 years old or younger, after which they
        are sold to a company in LA that parks them on a huge lot and sells them
        to smaller towns and foreign countries. What FTA says is that some 10
        year old buses that are well maintained are no more polluting than much
        newer buses, and that the 10 year cut off is arbitrary and that simply
        testing the tailpipe emissions and having road worthiness testing would
        be more efficient, but enforcement of such measures seems to be beyond
        the capacity of many countries and I would assume this includes the
        Philippines, hence the need for a sub-optimal age restriction. They can
        probably resell the vehicles outside Manila where there are lower
        concentrations of ambient air pollution. -----Original Message-----
        From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook==itdp.org@...
        [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook==itdp.org@...] On
        Behalf Of Brendan Finn
        Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:00 AM
        To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
        Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year
        oldpublictransport buses clean? Dear Aurora,

        In my opinion, the simple answer is that a good preventive maintenance
        regime will keep the buses a lot cleaner than they would be in the
        absence of such a regime. I don't know what you define as "clean", I
        would take the benchmark as the performance you should expect in the
        first five years if the vehicle is maintained in line with the
        manufacturer's recommendations.

        I presume the scenario refers either to an existing stock of buses or
        to a proposal to buy in second-hand vehicles which are being replaced in
        another country (perhaps currently 10-15 years old), and that there is
        concern locally about the future emissions based on past experience with
        the operators. At the risk of interfering where I don't know the
        context, I would suggest that there are five factors which could assure
        good performance from older vehicles :

        a) Clearly defined emission standards which are practical, realistic,
        and measurable
        b) An enforcement regime that can detect violating vehicles and impose
        escalating penalties on their owners
        c) A regime of preventive maintenance within the operating companies
        that supports a vehicle throughout its working life (provide some
        technical assistance if needed)
        d) Sufficiently strong incentives for companies to include
        emissions-related work and testing within such a regime
        e) Incentives for operating companies to replace their vehicles when
        good maintenance can no longer possible keep them within specifications
        (and, of course, ensure that these vehicles are scrapped rather than
        sold on somewhere else)

        On one issue I would be cautious. In some places I have seen the
        arguments about old or clean buses used as a pretext for other actions.
        For example, I have seen it used to drive small operating companies and
        owner-drivers off the road to the advantage of the state-owned
        enterprises, and in other cases as criteria on routes tenders to quite
        effectively eliminate the competition in the pre-qualification stages. I
        think it is important to keep the agenda 'clean' as well as the buses!

        If you assemble the various inputs into a briefing note, I would be
        interested to receive it.

        With best wishes,


        Brendan Finn.
        ____________________________________________________________________________
        _________
        >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@... tel :
        +353.87.2530286
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: aables@...
        To: sustran-discuss@...
        Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:40 AM
        Subject: [sustran] Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old
        publictransport buses clean?

        Dear SUSTRAN friends, We thought you might have something to say on
        this topic. Please see below. Best regards, Au Aurora Fe Ables
        Transport Researcher
        Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia)
        Asian Development Bank
        Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820
        Fax (632) 636-2381
        Email aables@...
        http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia

        www.adb.org

        ----- Forwarded by Aurora Ables/Consultants/ADB on 01-02-2006 11:27 AM
        ----- gbathan@...
        01-02-2006 10:40 AM Please respond to
        cai-asia@...
        To"Clean Air Initiative -- Asia" <cai-asia@...>
        cchfabian@..., "Bebet Gozun" <bggozun@...>,
        chuizenga@..., majero@..., mrco@..., aables@...
        Subject[cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport
        buses clean?



        Dear friends,

        In a stakeholder meeting held in the Philippines last week, CAI-Asia
        was asked to request inputs through the listserv to the question --
        "Will vehicle maintenance ensure that 15-year old public transport buses
        remain non-polluting?" 15 years here means 15 years from the date of
        engine manufacture.

        Your inputs would be greatly appreciated.

        Glynda Glynda Bathan
        Coordinator
        Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia)
        Asian Development Bank
        Tel (632) 632-5151
        Fax (632) 636-2381
        http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia

        www.adb.org Aurora Fe Ables
        Transport Researcher
        Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia)
        Asian Development Bank
        Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820
        Fax (632) 636-2381
        Email aables@...
        http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia

        www.adb.org


        ===============================================================================================================================SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
        equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
        (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus
        is on urban transport policy in Asia.



        ===============================================================================================================================SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
        equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
        (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is
        on urban transport policy in Asia.
      • Guevarra, Joselito Lomada
        Eric, Foreign aid?! You must be joking right? The Philippines doesn t need aid to keep their ageing buses running. Yes, you re right. I too would choose to
        Message 3 of 3 , Feb 2, 2006
          Eric,



          Foreign aid?! You must be joking right? The Philippines doesn't need aid to
          keep their ageing buses running. Yes, you're right. I too would choose to
          feed my family than care about the environment. But you see the private
          operators in the Phils are not scraping by, they're making huge profits by
          scrimping on maintenance, salaries and benefits of drivers and bus
          conductors (the one who diligently collects the fares). It is they who need
          the aid, not the bus companies.



          This is all interesting and we can go on with the technological fixes and
          stuff but it ain't worth a dime unless governance reforms come first. This
          is the most important thing and not finding out ways to keep those filthy
          buses running.



          Jojo



          _____

          From: sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl==nus.edu.sg@...
          [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+cvegjl==nus.edu.sg@...] On
          Behalf Of Eric Bruun
          Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 6:41 AM
          To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport; 'Asia and the Pacific
          sustainable transport'
          Subject: [sustran] More on Will maintenance keep 15-year old public
          transportbuses clean?



          To add to what Walter said:



          I think that it is not the bus chassis so much that is at issue, but the
          drive train. A bus that is not corroded and well-maintained can have a new
          or rebuilt engine installed at mide-life and it will function largely like a
          new one up to 15 years old. After that, they start to have lots of other
          maintenance issues, as well, as the engine and transmission.



          If it is not a purpose-built bus, but a truck chassis with a bus body added,
          its life will be much shorter than 15 years, no matter what. Anything
          without air suspension, and that frequently operates overloaded will destroy
          both the chassis and the drive train.



          Also, retrofitting a particulate trap onto the exhaust is one of the single
          most important things to do! Particulates are where diesels are inferior to
          petrol and CNG engines. This is the type of foriegn aid that should be given
          immediately.



          One more thing. It is unrealistic to expect a service that operates without
          subsidies and where the owner/operator is living at a subistence level to
          maintain buses well. If I were them, I would choose feeding my family over
          cleaning the fuel injectors and air filters. So, pollution can not be
          separated from the operating economics that prevail. In my opinion, anyone
          who supports laizzez faire for public transport doesn't care about the
          environment very much.



          Eric Bruun


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Walter Hook
          Sent: Feb 1, 2006 10:06 AM
          To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'
          Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year
          oldpublictransport buses clean?

          I am not an expert in this, but i do know that in most US cities transit
          authorities receiving money from the US Federal Transit Admin must use buses
          10 years old or younger, after which they are sold to a company in LA that
          parks them on a huge lot and sells them to smaller towns and foreign
          countries. What FTA says is that some 10 year old buses that are well
          maintained are no more polluting than much newer buses, and that the 10 year
          cut off is arbitrary and that simply testing the tailpipe emissions and
          having road worthiness testing would be more efficient, but enforcement of
          such measures seems to be beyond the capacity of many countries and I would
          assume this includes the Philippines, hence the need for a sub-optimal age
          restriction. They can probably resell the vehicles outside Manila where
          there are lower concentrations of ambient air pollution.



          -----Original Message-----
          From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook==itdp.org@...
          [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook==itdp.org@...] On Behalf
          Of Brendan Finn
          Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:00 AM
          To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
          Subject: [sustran] Re: Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year
          oldpublictransport buses clean?



          Dear Aurora,



          In my opinion, the simple answer is that a good preventive maintenance
          regime will keep the buses a lot cleaner than they would be in the absence
          of such a regime. I don't know what you define as "clean", I would take the
          benchmark as the performance you should expect in the first five years if
          the vehicle is maintained in line with the manufacturer's recommendations.



          I presume the scenario refers either to an existing stock of buses or to a
          proposal to buy in second-hand vehicles which are being replaced in another
          country (perhaps currently 10-15 years old), and that there is concern
          locally about the future emissions based on past experience with the
          operators. At the risk of interfering where I don't know the context, I
          would suggest that there are five factors which could assure good
          performance from older vehicles :



          a) Clearly defined emission standards which are practical, realistic, and
          measurable

          b) An enforcement regime that can detect violating vehicles and impose
          escalating penalties on their owners

          c) A regime of preventive maintenance within the operating companies that
          supports a vehicle throughout its working life (provide some technical
          assistance if needed)

          d) Sufficiently strong incentives for companies to include emissions-related
          work and testing within such a regime

          e) Incentives for operating companies to replace their vehicles when good
          maintenance can no longer possible keep them within specifications (and, of
          course, ensure that these vehicles are scrapped rather than sold on
          somewhere else)



          On one issue I would be cautious. In some places I have seen the arguments
          about old or clean buses used as a pretext for other actions. For example, I
          have seen it used to drive small operating companies and owner-drivers off
          the road to the advantage of the state-owned enterprises, and in other cases
          as criteria on routes tenders to quite effectively eliminate the competition
          in the pre-qualification stages. I think it is important to keep the agenda
          'clean' as well as the buses!



          If you assemble the various inputs into a briefing note, I would be
          interested to receive it.



          With best wishes,





          Brendan Finn.

          ____________________________________________________________________________
          _________
          >From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd. e-mail : etts@... tel :
          +353.87.2530286

          ----- Original Message -----

          From: aables@...

          To: sustran-discuss@...

          Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 3:40 AM

          Subject: [sustran] Fw: [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old
          publictransport buses clean?



          Dear SUSTRAN friends,

          We thought you might have something to say on this topic. Please see below.

          Best regards,

          Au

          Aurora Fe Ables
          Transport Researcher
          Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia)
          Asian Development Bank
          Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820
          Fax (632) 636-2381
          Email aables@...
          http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia

          www.adb.org

          ----- Forwarded by Aurora Ables/Consultants/ADB on 01-02-2006 11:27 AM -----



          gbathan@...

          01-02-2006 10:40 AM


          Please respond to
          cai-asia@...


          To

          "Clean Air Initiative -- Asia" <cai-asia@...>


          cc

          hfabian@..., "Bebet Gozun" <bggozun@...>, chuizenga@...,
          majero@..., mrco@..., aables@...


          Subject

          [cai-asia] Will maintenance keep 15-year old public transport buses clean?












          Dear friends,

          In a stakeholder meeting held in the Philippines last week, CAI-Asia was
          asked to request inputs through the listserv to the question -- "Will
          vehicle maintenance ensure that 15-year old public transport buses remain
          non-polluting?" 15 years here means 15 years from the date of engine
          manufacture.

          Your inputs would be greatly appreciated.

          Glynda

          Glynda Bathan
          Coordinator
          Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia)
          Asian Development Bank
          Tel (632) 632-5151
          Fax (632) 636-2381
          http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia

          www.adb.org

          Aurora Fe Ables
          Transport Researcher
          Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia)
          Asian Development Bank
          Tel (632) 632-4444 ext. 70820
          Fax (632) 636-2381
          Email aables@...
          http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia
          .
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.