From the World Carshare Consortium: I would like to offer a "thought experiment" with anyone here who may wish to jump in with their ideas. criticism and/or proposals -- or perhaps only to pull up a chair and see what happens in a case like this. 
Saturday, November 10, 2012
"CAR21": A Thinking Exercise (or New Ways of Owning and Using Cars in the 21st Century)
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The Transportation Majority. (And why can't our politicians count?)
Friday, July 8, 2011
SLOWTH: Or why it is so very important (and so very easy) to slow down traffic in cities
Monday, April 25, 2011
The Transportation Majority. Can't our politicians count?
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Unfair, unsafe and unwise - a major crisis abuilding for sustainable transport in Britain
Dear British Friends and Colleagues,
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Car Free Days 2010: Part 1. Origins, Timeline, Progress
"Every day is a great day to take a few cars off the street and think about it."
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Americans want alternatives.
Fair enough. We all want choices. That is no more than human nature, But when it comes to transport policy and practice in the United States at the highest level, the idea of real choices is no less than a revolutionary statement. Right from the mouth of President Obama's Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, who continues to surprise and delight. (But now, vigilant citizens, let's see where the $$$ go. There is no such thing as passive democracy.)
US Transportation Secretary on Biking, Walking and ‘What Americans Want’
By Leora Broydo Vestel, as printed in the Green Inc. -- blog of the New York Times.
We propose that you check into their site from time to time. The Times has become a leading international voice for sustainable transportation. (We need more of them.)
The United States transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, recently caused a stir when he proclaimed that bicycling and walking should be given the same consideration as motorized transport in state and local transit projects.
“It’s what Americans want to do,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, of his emphasis on the role of bicycles and walking in good transportation policy.
Supporters, who continue to post notes of adulation and thanks on Mr. LaHood’s Facebook page, say the acknowledgment of biking and walking as legitimate modes of transportation is long overdue.
Critics, conversely, believe the secretary is taking the country in the wrong direction.
Mr. LaHood, formerly a Republican congressman from Illinois, spoke with Green Inc. about his reasons for introducing the new policy, the impact it will have on transportation financing, and why bike paths are a good bang for the buck.
Q. Bicycling and walking advocates had a very positive reaction to the policy change. But here at Green Inc., we heard mostly from critics who said it showed you were “delusional” or reflective of some sort of “Maoist” bent. What’s your response to the response?
A. My response is that this is what Americans want. Americans want alternatives. People are always going to drive cars. We’re always going to have highways. We’ve made a huge investment in our interstate highway system. We’ll always continue to make sure that those investments in the highways are maintained.
But, what Americans want is to get out of their cars, and get out of congestion, and have opportunities for more transit, more light rail, more buses, and some communities are going to street cars. But many communities want the opportunity on the weekends and during the week to have the chance to bike to work, to bike to the store, to spend time with their family on a bike.
So, this is not just Ray LaHood’s agenda, this is the American agenda that the American people want for alternatives to the automobile.
What’s happened around America is people are buying bikes and they’re using them for recreational purposes on the weekend and there’s no better family way for people to spend a weekend than riding their bikes on these biking trails.
This is what Americans want and we’re accommodating their needs to really find places to recreate. And what could be healthier than taking a 30-minute walk, which is recommended by every doctor in America, or hopping on your bike and riding four, five or six miles and enjoying the great outdoors?
Look, this is a win-win. This is a way for people to get out of their cars, a way for people to recreate, a way for people to get good exercise, and it’s what Americans want to do.
Q.In announcing the new policy, you used pretty forceful language, saying it was a “sea change” and “the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized.” The actual policy, however, is more benign in tone, saying, “well-connected walking and bicycling networks is an important component for livable communities, and their design should be a part of federal-aid project developments.”
Do you stand by your initial characterization of the policy?
A. I think that livable and sustainable communities is a game changer. It’s a game changer because it’s what Americans want. It’s a game changer because people do want to get out of congestion, they want to get out of their cars, they want to be able to enjoy the outdoors, they want to be able to recreate with their families.
And so it’s a game changer from the point of view that it’s a major component of livable and sustainable communities that provide alternatives to automobiles. And some of it is transit, some of it is light rail, some of it is street cars, some of it is good buses. But certainly a big part of it is the opportunity to bike or walk to the grocery store, to work, to the drug store or just spending time with the family and getting some good exercise.
Q. In terms of the way federal transportation dollars will be spent on the ground, is this a zero sum game? Does more money for biking and walking mean less money for motorways?
A. We’re always going to take care of our highways. As I said, we have a state-of-the-art interstate system that’s been developed over three or four decades. We’re not going to give up on our roads. We know people are always going to drive cars. They’re going to use their cars for long distances.
But as we develop our livable and sustainable communities program, biking and walking paths will be a major component of it. And they will get some significant dollars.
Q. In response to the policy change, a member of Congress said he didn’t understand how you get a bang for the buck out of a bicycle project. Why do you think they’re a good investment?
A. You don’t have to get a bang for the buck in every form of transportation. Certainly, transit, it provides a good bus or light rail or other kinds of transportation services. But, they don’t make money doing it.
This is a good bang for the buck because it provides alternatives to people, and good exercise, and for people who are very health conscious and for people who want to spend time with their families.
This is a win, win, win. It incorporates a lot of different opportunities for people and it’s a good bang for good health, and a good bang for a different form of transportation, and it’s what the American people want.
Q. Was there any particular reason you wanted to introduce the new policy now?
A. It has more to do with the fact that we’re rolling out our livable and sustainable communities as we travel around the country and I also was at a huge bikers’ conference in Washington, D.C., and we wanted to give them the chance to really understand that all of their hard work over a long period of time has finally paid off. There’s an administration in place now that has taken to heart their request for more walking and biking paths.
# # #
Editor's note:
Let us see if we can put this into perspective. Now, while it is very good to hear America's Transportation Secretary taking an active, even enthusiastic stance in favor of bicycling and walking, and while it is great if not entirely unexpected news that the cyclists and pedestrians groups are strongly and vocally supporting this policy change (because it is indeed an important policy change), we also need to bear in mind that this is a small step.
What we need is for the Secretary to embrace the full range of the options which are opened up by the New Mobility Agenda, all of which need to be understood individually and, now comes the hard part, orchestrated in each place into a fully tailored unique mobility package so as to provide fair transportation for all the people who live and work in that place.
I ask myself this: what is it that we can do, you and I and others who care, in order to broaden the palate of transportation options which are needed in order to provide full and fair service for the entire population, bearing in mind that in most places more than 50% of the people who live there cannot or should not be driving their own car. I guess we just have to keep working on it. (We will !)
Eric Britton
Editor
Friday, March 26, 2010
Letter from Kathmandu:
Promoting walking as sustainable transport in cities
Does anyone notice anything a bit strange in these two photos of traffic in Kathmandu Nepal on any typical day. To the left we have boiling Asia-style traffic propelling speeding high carbon males. While to the right we see a woman and a girl making their way as best they can by foot. Hmm.Status of Pedestrian Infrastructures in Kathmandu City
- Charina Cabrido, Clean Air Initiatives for Asian Cities. Kathmandu, Nepal.
A study undertaken by Clean Air Network Nepal and Clean Energy Nepal (CEN) has revealed that pedestrian facilities in Kathmandu are in extremely poor condition and not user-friendly to physically disabled people. 
The field survey was conducted in commercial, public transport, educational and residential areas covering a total of 48 road stretches with a combined length of 59 kilometers.
Based from the survey results, the walkability index of Kathmandu City is 559. When compared with other cities, Bangkok is 121. An index that comprises a single ranking number is regarded to be a more walkable city. Residential areas in Baneshwor Height, Kuleshwor, Khusibu and Lainchaur to Lazimpat has the highest walkability scores in the following variables; availability of walking paths with maintenance and cleanliness, availability of crossings per stretch, grade crossing safety, motorists obeying traffic laws and security from crime. 
The commercial area in Ason road has the lowest walkability scores in almost all variables: availability of walking paths, availability of crossings per stretch, grade crossing safety, motorists obeying traffic laws, amenities, disability infrastructures and security from crime. It was registered that significant modal conflict in walking path mainly comes from vendors occupying the footpaths that make walking inconvenient. The Public Transport areas in Ratna Park and Kalanki have the highest number of pedestrian users and obtained the highest score in walking path modal conflict. 
As a first step towards encouraging and helping cities improve their pedestrian infrastructure, the Asian Development Bank through the Clean Air Initiatives for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia) and its partner network, Clean Energy Nepal (CEN) has conducted the walkability survey in Kathmandu City to collect data about the city’s pedestrian environment.
The overarching goal of the project is to improve pedestrian’s safety and mobility and promote walking as a sustainable transport. Prior to the survey, CEN conducted the walkability training in Kathmandu City last January 13 on fifteen youth volunteers known as Walkability Ambassadors. The training included a methodology in assessing the pedestrian environment based on safety and security, convenience, policy support, study area selection, city boundary, street selection, and time of day considerations.
About 305 pedestrian interviews were conducted to analyze travel behavior (time that pedestrians spend for each travel mode), pedestrian preference in terms of infrastructures, degrees of exposure to air pollution and socioeconomic profiles. Field survey forms were collected to examine road stretches around the city that includes availability of walking paths, motorist behavior, amenities, obstructions, and security from crime, among others.
When we asked pedestrians to rate the existing pedestrian facilities in the city, 46 percent said that the situation of existing infrastructures in the city is in its worst condition. There was no observed consistency in design in terms of width, height, and continuity of footpaths or road-crossings. A number of footpaths have meter width forcing the pedestrians to use the main roads. Other amenities such as lamp post and greenery occupy the footpaths and existing guard rails are in poor state. Pedestrian signboards and crossing marks are fading that gives longer waiting time for people to cross the other side of the road.
About 94 percent of all the surveyed road stretches has no existing facilities for persons with disabilities. In terms of improvements in pedestrian facilities, this is the utmost priority perceived by majority of the respondents, followed by improved street lighting and wider, level and clean sidewalks.
Almost 80 percent of the stakeholders and government respondents said that there are no clear laws on jaywalking, traffic calming and roadside advertisements. The Metropolitan Traffic Police claims that traffic enforcement is regularly being implemented. However, their data reveals that the total accident for the year 2065 to 2066 (Nepali Calendars) accounts for 2765 in which the total fatality is 137; the total number of seriously injured is 720 and minor injuries reported is 2448. Based from the results derived from stakeholder and government surveys, the main barriers in improving the pedestrian facilities include lack of awareness on the importance of pedestrians safety, polices and investment for pedestrian friendly infrastructures and guidelines, linkages of all authorities working on pedestrian issues, poor urbanization plan and weak agency implementation.
The strength of a city’s pedestrian network affects the overall pedestrian experience. In most countries advocating sustainable modes of urban transport, the methods of planning are redesigned so that these are integral part of the sustainable transport planning. Priorities are shifting towards less environmentally damaging modes and improved vehicle technology and optimizing the use of existing capacity
As a way forward, CEN wants to disseminate the results of the walkability survey in Kathmandu City and work on an integrated approach towards sustainable urban transport in the city. Beginning third week of March, various activities are scheduled as follows: Youth sharing sessions with students, Cycling Marathon, Training on UNEP Toolkit for Vehicle Emission Testing and discussion with the Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Physical Planning and Works and other concerned officials regarding planned initiatives in encouraging people to travel on foot. CEN believes that improving the pedestrian facilities has many societal benefits. More often than not, the environmental, social and economic development of the city is entirely dependent on safeguarding the key pedestrian routes.
# # #
About the author:
Charina Cabrido is an environmental researcher, a writer and a cycling advocate who 
is working for sustainable urban transport in Kathmandu, Nepal. She is currently associated with the Clean Air Initiatives for Asian Cities, an organization that is active in 8 country networks and over 170 organizational members to promote and demonstrate innovative ways to improve the air quality in Asian cities through partnerships and sharing experiences. Charina currently leads the Walkability Index Survey in Kathmandu to promote improvements in pedestrianisation infrastructures and services. She is also active in developing mass education, awarness and media campaign related to Air Quality Management issues in Nepal through the Clean Air Network Nepal.
Editor's note:
Sometimes life is simple. If you want truly sustainable transport system, design it for females. All the rest will be fine tuning.
And don't worry. We will not stop repeating it.
Eric Britton, World Streets
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Bottom line: Roads are for vehicles. Streets are for people.
(No matter where you are in the world.)
Your editor was on automatic pilot this early morning, reading with half an eye the 
International Herald Tribune/New York Times as is his habit, and behold there in the Letters to the Editor column were a series of words which at first glance he thought he had written himself. (More coffee clearly needed.) Wrong, it was Lee Schipper commenting on an earlier Times piece on "Building Cambodia’s roads". I quote:
Building Cambodia’s roads
Regarding the article “Cambodia’s routes to riches” (Jan. 19): While rural roads connecting major population centers are important for development, Cambodians rely mostly on bicycles, small motorbikes and their feet for transportation. This majority of travelers is usually the first sacrificed for cars and trucks. New roads tend to cut through smaller villages and lead to the deaths of pedestrians and cyclists, who are rarely considered by the road-building authorities.
Striking a balance between development, auto-mobility for the minority of Cambodians with cars, and the livelihoods of the majority, ought to be more important than opening tourist centers. Is this the only way for Cambodia to develop?
Lee Schipper, Ph.D. - schipper@wri.org
Project Scientist, Global Metropolitan Studies, UC Berkeley
Senior Research Engineer, Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, Stanford Univ.
# # #
Most of us who have managed to make our way to the right side of these issues have for some time made the vital distinction between roads and streets, for which the Executive Summary is: (a) roads are for vehicles and (b) streets are for people. And once you have figured that out, all kinds of good things can follow. (And you can find quite a bit more on this here by clicking http://tinyurl.com/ws-street
Thanks Lee for reminding us once again -- and as we gear up to make our collective voice heard in Haiti this is one of the key points we need to make, make early, and make in a way that our voices get heard.
Eric Britton
Editor
Friday, January 29, 2010
Sustainable transport survey identifies five types of travellers
A new study from Germany of attitudes towards transport and mobility has identified five groups of travellers. The groups differ significantly in their choice of transport, distance travelled and the impact their transport choices have on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.- by ClickGreen staff. Published Sat 30 Jan 2010 16:50 http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/research/trends/121060-sustainable-transport-survey-identifies-five-types-of-travellers.html
The transport sector is responsible for a large share of urban air pollution and for nearly a fifth of the GHG emissions from the European Economic Area member countries.
According to the European Environment Agency, the increase in CO2 from transport could threaten the ability of the EU to meet Kyoto targets. In the EU's Sustainable Development Strategy, transport is identified as a priority challenge.
Sustainable mobility options can be made more attractive to the European public through soft policy measures, such as public awareness campaigns and marketing for public transport.
However, their success depends on targeting different groups that exist within the public.
The study interviewed 1,991 citizens living in three German cities on their use of and attitudes towards transport. The analysis indicated that there are five different 'mobility types' of people:
1. Public transport rejecters. These believe public transport provides little sense of control or excitement. They are not open to change and see access to mobility as very important.
2. Car individualists. Similar to public transport rejecters, but are open to change and consider privacy more important.
3. Weather-resistant cyclists. Positive towards bicycles and will cycle even in bad weather.
4. Eco-sensitised public transport users. Positive towards public transport and are highly influenced by their environmental conscience.
5. Self-determined mobile people. Perform the highest percentage of trips by foot; they do not consider mobility important and are not open to change.
Each group comprises around 20 per cent of the participants surveyed. Unsurprisingly, the public transport rejecters and car individualists produce the largest total GHG emissions from transport use (both public and private), at over 2000 kg of CO2 equivalent each per year.
The remaining three groups all have total GHG emissions under 1000 kg of CO2 equivalent per person per year. Self-determined mobile people have the lowest total GHG emissions from transport use, at just over 500 kg of CO2 equivalent per person per year.
Residents in suburban areas used cars more often. However, there were no significant differences in distance travelled and level of GHG emissions between those that lived in suburban, inner-city and city-district areas. Young people in single households and two-or-more-person households covered the most distance by car and had the highest GHG emissions. Pensioners had the lowest.
The five 'mobility types' have a strong predictive power for transport choice and associated GHG emissions. This approach has proved more predictive of transport choice than geographic or socio-demographic approaches. Focusing on mobility types could be a starting point for soft policy measures by helping select and prepare information for the different groups.
# # #
One point about those five mobility types if I may. They look rather German to me, perhaps Nordic. The categories in Delhi, Denver or Dar es Salaam will doubtless look a bit different. There is a lot of culture in mobility, never mind climate, geography, economics and the rest. Still, food for thought. 
* Waiting for the bus in Cape Town. Credit: Mobility Magazine
Note: The ClickGreen report does not indicate its source, but we shall look for it and report here when we find it as a Comment to this article. In the meantime of course comments and further references most welcome.
The editor
Monday, December 28, 2009
(From our 2009 archives and worthy of your attention)
"Transport Refugees – Victims of Unjust Transport Policies"
The term “refugee” if used in the context of transportation 
would normally be understood to mean “the movement of refugees”. But what we fail to comprehend is that for various reasons it is our own transport systems, and the values and decisions that shape them, that are making many of us “refugees” in our own cities? It does not have to be this way.[Back on July 22nd of this year we published some extracts of this important thinkpiece, which has recently become a subject of vigorous discussion in our Sustran Global South Forum, specifically in the context this time of the continuing push by certain authorities to ban rickshaw pullers in Dhaka from plying their trade. This tendency of many authorities to try to concentrate on buying and building expensive imported technologies, instead of innovating, improving and working with what they have ,is something of a phenomenon we are seeing in many parts of the world, North and South. Spend a bit of time here with Sudhir and Bert. It will not be time wasted, pointing us to valuable lessons good not only for Dhaka, but Detroit and Dar es Salaam, Dortmund and Djakarta, and beyond. (And if your time today does not allow you to read the full article here, may we urge you to check out their World Streets 22 July summary here-.)]
Transport Refugees – Victims Of Unjust Transport Policies
Becoming “refugees” in our own cities
According to international refugee law , a refugee is someone who seeks refuge in a foreign country because of war and violence, or out of fear of persecution "on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group”. Authors draw parallel from the term “refugee” in order to emphasize the growing social discrimination and exclusion of vulnerable road users while making transport decisions.
The authors have investigated various documents and news reports to argue as to how we are increasingly becoming victims of our own solutions and thus becoming refugees in our own lands. In the subsequent sections, the authors have tried to explore various issues in order to prove this facet, while the WHO (2009) in the latest study provides a very good summary of victimization of vulnerable people.
“Our roads are particularly unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists who, without the protective shell of a car around them, are more vulnerable. These road users need to be given increased attention. Measures such as building sidewalks, raised crossings and separate lanes for two wheelers; reducing drink-driving and excessive speed; increasing the use of helmets and improving trauma care are some of the interventions that could save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. While progress has been made towards protecting people in cars, the needs of these vulnerable groups of road users are not being met” 
The externalities of transport
Outdoor air pollution alone causes an estimated 800,000 deaths each year. Research from the East & West Center based in Hawaii, U.S. on commuter’s exposure to PM 10 while walking in Hanoi (2006) are as high as 495 µg/m3. The Health Effects Institute hospital and household studies in Ho Chi Minh City (2007) found a strong link between air pollution, especially ozone and NO2, and health impacts on young children in the form of acute lower respiratory illness.
In a 2009 survey, one in every five people in Hong Kong said they were considering leaving the city because of the air pollution. One in 10 was either seriously considering leaving or already in the process of leaving. Also results indicated that severest health effects aggravated by air pollution are associated with income with poor people as major sufferers.
The WHO in a 2009 study estimates around 150,000 deaths occurring in low-income countries each year due to climate change from four climate-sensitive health outcomes – crop failure and malnutrition, diarrheal disease, malaria and flooding. 85% of these excess deaths were found in younger children.
According to latest WHO estimates, nearly 1.27 million people die in road traffic crashes every year. In addition, road crashes cause between 20 million and 50 million non-fatal injuries every year and are an important cause of disability. Important aspects to be noted are:
Data from many cities (Pakistan, Nepal, Thailand, India and Philippines) suggest that average ambient noise levels range from 50-100 with 112d b being maximum. Research on noise pollution is indicating that it causes more deaths when compared to heart disease. There is growing evidence that noise pressure levels exceeding 50 db(A) during night time are related to the development of high blood pressure and exceeding 65 db(A) during day time increases the risk for heart attacks in men. Research (footnote 6) indicates that, In a German city “Cologne”, for every third household moving out of city, noise and air pollution in the city was a crucial reason. It is to be noted that people walking, cycling and using public transport face the highest exposure thus are at greatest risk.
• High share of “vulnerable group” in the traffic accidents. In fact, in low-income countries of South East Asia over 80% of those killed are vulnerable road users
• Over 90% of the world’s fatalities on the roads occur in low-income and middle-income countries which has 48% of vehicles
• 32% of countries in world have national or local level policies on walking and cycling
• 50% of world’s population lives in countries which do not have speed limits on urban roads (of less than or equal to 50 kph) and for the countries which have some sort of speed limits, enforcement is very poor (in a rating evaluation only 9% of countries scored 7 or more in the range 1-10)
• Projections suggest that road traffic fatalities would be the fifth leading cause of death by 2030 with an estimated 2.4 million fatalities per year
Urban sprawl induced development
Asian cities undergo a “push-pull” phenomenon. Many people are abandoning the cities in search of better quality of life and environment and moving out of such cities (push), on the other hand, there are still a high number of people migrating into such decaying cities in order to make a living (pull). Also, the trend of ‘slush and burn development’ is on the raise in many Asian cities. Private real estate developers are developing various periphery business districts and new commercial areas while abandoning the old decaying sections of the city in order to generate the economic boom. This kind of development needs to be understood in context of poor people.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization report points out that the overwhelming majority of the hungry live in the developing world with 65% of them in just seven countries - India, China, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Ethiopia. Majority of such poor migrate to cities and live in slums next to major corridors. Some reports indicate that Asian cities currently accommodate nearly 60% of total world’s slum population. In Delhi, approximately 45% of population are clustered into slums and live in inhuman conditions and have to face transport discrimination daily.
Sometimes the cleansing, densification and beatification process carried out for city development (sometimes solutions such as transport focused development which induces sprawl along public transport routes) creates more victims then solutions. Major benefits accrued by land because of such transport development are squeezed by rich people thus further marginalizing the poor.
Reports from Mumbai indicate that 1,5000 million INR Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) is being opposed the very expert committee which was authorized by government. Reports indicate that the reason being possible damage to the livelihood of local people as well as the burden it will add to an already-densely populated area. Some reports indicate that from a city like Chennai alone about 100,000 people will be shifted out of the city as part of a clean-up. A news report quotes Jeb Brugmann as saying
“I have studied migrant communities in several places and one thing that stands out is that they all have a unique psychological profile — they are risk-takers with a strong entrepreneurial drive. Shifting these people to the margins, cutting them off from resources and opportunities is only a recipe for revolution,”
Several research papers have documented the impact of rail system on Bangkok land market. It is true that Bangkok has seen some transformation because of improvement in public transport facilities. But not many people have documented the impact of such projects on vulnerable people. ADB’s Urban Transport Project in Bangkok has documented some impact of the ADB’s urban transport project. Nearly 1220 households had to be relocated. The Performance Evaluation Report notes that
1. Increase in commercial area around the corridors ( exploitation of land for commercial reasons)
2. Of every 100 vehicles on the roads that benefit from the project road, 45% of the persons in them are estimated to be bus passengers.
3. Although the information is patchy, the main conclusion is that the relocation has not improved the lives of the relocated people because of project. The main issues were increased travel distances to work and separation from relatives. There were indications that a portion of the resettlers had become worse off: 49% had economic problems, and 44% took more time to travel, with only 9% taking less time.
With such increasing challenges, research from India and China indicate that people spend more on transport then on housing, health and education. With increasing prices, people tend to consume less food in order to afford higher transport costs.
Subsidizing the rich at the cost of the poor and the underprivileged
In 2008, increase in fuel prices severely affected governments that subsidized fuels. Fuel subsidies cost annually about 0.1-15 billion USD across various countries. The Indonesian government acknowledged that “with the increasing fuel subsidy, the government’s ability to fund programs which are oriented to the improvement of lives for the poor has dramatically reduced. These programs include education, health facilities, National Program for Community Empowerment, small business credit facilities, and the development of infrastructure. On the other hand, the fuel subsidy is mainly consumed by those who are not targeted by the program. As much as 40 percent of high income families benefit from 70 percent of the subsidy, while 40 percent of the lowest income families only benefit only 15 percent.”
The Elite and poor Neighborhoods in New Delhi
A recent walkability survey in Delhi by CSE, points out the deficiency in investment planning. It evaluated pedestrian facilities in a low income neighborhood with a high income neighborhood and found that- In Govindpuri (low income neighborhood) where about 100 persons walk per five minutes during peak hour had poorly designed if any foot facilities and in Aurangzeb Road (high income neighborhood) lined with ministerial bunglows, where only 3 persons were seen walking in ten minutes during the morning peak hour, has well designed and spacious footpaths.
Banning Cycle Rickshaws in New Delhi
In May 2006, the High Court of Delhi passed an order directing the municipal government to stop granting licenses for cycle rickshaws on Delhi roads, complete a ban on use of cycle rickshaws in Delhi's Chandni Chowk area, and introduce compressed natural gas buses in the area to replace the rickshaws. The reason citied was high congestion caused by cycle rickshaws. Estimates suggested that cycle rickshaws save more than 10 million motorized trips daily across the capital. Infuriated by the authority’s unjust intervention, many NGO’s fought the battle in judicial courts.
Many studies were quoted in the exchange. According to the latest reports, the Delhi High Court took an exception to the ‘unrealistic approach’ of the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) in banning cycle-rickshaws in parts of the capital and slammed it for not fixing a limit on the number of cars a person can possess.
It suggested - ‘We find the guidelines are unrealistic. Why are you so enthusiastic in banning cycle-rickshaws? Why don’t you issue guidelines limiting the number of cars a person can have in the city?’
Though the court battle is still on but the condition of cycle rickshaw drivers have deteriorated over time due to harassment by authorities and fellow motorists. According to a survey by ITDP, the majority of cycle rickshaw drivers (54%) were landless laborer and over 30% were small/marginal farmers with majority of them illiterate. Their earnings from running the cycle rickshaw was around 2$-6$ per day.
It is to be noted that there has been no reports on reduction in congestion at the places where ban took place.
Banning Cycle Rickshaws in Dhaka
One of the main reasons of Cycle rickshaw growth in Dhaka has been the Dhaka City Corporation (DCC), decision on September 1, 2002 to ban two stroke auto-rickshaws. The demand for informal public transport and short trip lengths (<5km)
DUTP – 1998 report showed that the Rickshaws took only 38% of road space while transporting 54% of passengers in Dhaka. The private cars on the other hand, took up 34% of road space while only transporting 9% of the population.
HDRC study captured the before and after impacts of Cycle rickshaw ban. Few of the conclusions are presented below a. Average monthly net income of rickshaw pullers decreased by 32%, from 3,834 to 2,600 taka
b. The amount of money sent back to their villages also declined following the ban. Before the ban, on average rickshaw pullers spent 64% of net income and sent the rest (36%) to his village. Following the ban, the amount spent in Dhaka decreased by 27%, while the amount sent to the village decreased by 41%.
c. Pullers compensated for loss of income by reducing food consumption, particularly of fish, meat, and cooking oil: for NMT pullers overall, 85.9%d ecreased their consumption of fish, 87.5% decreased consumption of meat, 65.1% decreased consumption of cooking oil, and over half (55.3%) decreased consumption of vegetables.
d. There was an increase in the number of income earners in the family from 1.24 to 1.37. This suggests that some children have been taken out of school to compensate for lost income, or that the burden on wives of the pullers have further increased as they must earn money as well as do all the family and household labor.
Sharifa Begum et al. did research on income and poverty aspects of cycle rickshaw drivers and concluded that a. urban rickshaw pullers in Dhaka come from very poor economic backgrounds consistent with the characteristics of chronic poverty
b. rickshaw pulling provides a route for modest upward mobility for those chronic rural poor who come to the city for work.
c. rickshaw pullers are susceptible to systematic health risks; deteriorating health, combined with health shocks, can impose a significant burden on the urban poor, dragging down the pace of upward mobility during their lifetime.
d. rickshaw pulling represents an unsustainable livelihood, as the initial welfare gains taper off with length of involvement in the sector.
e. intergenerational mobility of rickshaw-puller households is constrained by very limited schooling and the poor range of occupational choices for children.
Before and after studies conducted on some roads proved that there was no travel time gain for fuel dependent vehicle was achieved due to rickshaw ban but instead over the years the travel times for buses did undergo significant deterioration with a 26.1% increase of travel times. Also for shorter trips, there was significant increase in travel time due to non availability of transport-mode.
It can be derived from various research reports that banning cycle rickshaws do not serve any purpose and instead efforts should be made to improve the life of such people by offering them security and benefits. Banning is not a solution as it does not improve the congestion of city, road safety and life of such drivers but instead restricts the accessibility, mobility and increases motorization and environmental damage.
How about the old & persons with disabilities?
There are nearly 207 million aged (65 or>65 years) people in Asia (constituting approx 6% of total population). With mandatory retirement age of 55-60 years , and with huge proportion of older people being poorest people all their life with no savings , aged people become dependent on families as governments in many countries don’t play an active role in providing benefits across various dimensions. From the transport sector, in many countries it does not provide any relief but acts as a catalyst in aggravating the problems. Consuming polluted air for major part of life and travelling in torturous transport services over the later part of the years inflates the problems. Inefficient public transport services with encroached non-motorized facilities by traffic leaves them with little options. Research indicates that very few old people access public transit services in developed countries but its opposite in Asia.
The old people who manage to use public transport facilities often find themselves in mercy of crowded fellow passengers for getting a seat. Deprived of accessibility and mobility over the years, people are left to fend themselves from high motorization externalities.
Some Asian governments provide little transport-finance incentives such as
1. The Government of India has provided a 50% discount for bus transportation for older people (in one state free transportation is allowed on city buses)
2. In Nepal, the elderly get a 25% discount on transportation courtesy Nepalese Municipal Authority.
3. For the elderly in Thailand, only half price is charged for third-class journeys from June to September
Reports suggest that only about 15% of the loco motor disabled in India are able to use public transport. The term “barrier free” movement is yet a vision in Asian cities (exceptions include some developed cities such as Hong Kong and some Japanese cities). Experience from Philippines suggests that only 2 percent of children with disabilities have access to elementary education with the major barrier being “absence of accessible transportation”.
The following is an excerpt from the Persons with Disabilities Act from Malaysia, Philippines and India -
Malaysia (2008) - Access to public transport facilities – “Persons with disabilities shall have the right to access to and use of public transport facilities, amenities and services open or provided to the public on equal basis with persons without disabilities”
Philippines - Batas Pambansa Bilang 344 (National Law), Accessibility Law in 1983: purpose of enhancing the mobility of persons with disabilities by requiring public utilities to install facilities to make transportation accessible. Enactment of Republic Act 7277 provides in Section 25 thereof for a barrier-free environment
India (1995) - the act emphasizes the need for access of children with disabilities to school. It further suggests a. adapt rail compartments, buses, vessels and aircrafts in such a way as to permit easy access to such persons;
b. adapt toilets in rail compartments, vessels, aircrafts and waiting rooms in such a way as to permit the wheel chair users to use them conveniently.
c. installation of auditory signals at red lights in the public roads for the benefit of persons with visual handicap;
d. causing curb cuts and slopes to be made in pavements for the easy access of wheel chair users;
e. engraving on the surface of the zebra crossing for the blind or for persons with low vision;
f. engraving on the edges of railway platforms for the blind or for persons with low vision;
g. devising appropriate symbols of disability;
h. warning signals at appropriate places.
Though many cities provide subsidies in tickets, in-accessibility of public transport terminals and vehicles proves to be a major barrier. Even with the passage of such laws, transport in many cities is yet to become disabled friendly.
Recent news reports from Indonesia suggest that “Instead of requiring level footpaths and ramps, lawmakers voted unanimously this month to demand disabled people wear signs announcing their condition so motorists won't run them down as they cross the street.” Though the reports are yet to be confirmed by authors, but if this is true then it indicates further marginalization of persons with disabilities.
And the women?
Marginalization of women in transport can be understood from the fact that gender specific travel data is rarely collected at national and local levels and with such a mindset, rarely it may happen that the “women” were involved in the project design thus making the modes, mindset and infrastructure are rarely feminist sensitive. The transport challenge faced by women stretch across various dimensions such as safety, equity, accessibility and mobility. Transport opportunities often forces women to make restricted choices in employment as they have limited options in accessibility. For example, in one of surveys conducted in Dhaka, About 58% of women regarded the present bus service as overcrowded and accessibility difficult.
Sharifa et al. researched that many of rickshaw drivers in Dhaka who had switched jobs ( due to variety of reasons) had reduced monthly income. The wives of such drivers showed increase in incomes thus indicating more stress and hard work. Experience from Pakistan also indicates the similar story. Reports indicate that “uncivilized behavior” of some of the public transporters and unavailability of public transport are the main reasons for restricted trips.
One of the interesting findings of Metro Manila Urban Transportation Integration Study (1996) was that the trip production rates of women over the years (contrary to the logic where people expect increase) have decreased. In 1980, trip production rates were 2.17 (women) and 2.28 (men) which changed to 1.78 (women) and 2.40 (men). Perhaps due to growing inefficiencies in the transport system, the women were the victims with restricted mobility whereas mobility of men increased.
In one of the surveys in Delhi, it was found that women either travel by foot (54%) or use buses (39%) for work purpose. Important thing to note here is the incidence of women spending 2-3 hours in commuting (17%). This creates high impact as they not only need to undergo longer work hours but also work at home and manage the family chores. Sad part is that they are wasting more time travelling lesser distances then men because of the inefficient transport systems.
What about the people living on streets? Research from Delhi indicate that at any given time, there are 10,000 homeless women in Delhi who live on streets as there are insufficient shelters (3) available for use by homeless women. Such women are not only exposed to the increased risk of illness and starvation associated with life on the street, but also heightened vulnerability to violence.
Does our transport system help them or victimize them further?
Clearly our transport system has become more and more injurious to health and inequitable. Over the years, we have tried to compartmentalize and segregate many of the problems of transport and tried to derive piecemeal / quick fix technical solutions without much success. Congestion costs as accessed by various researchers from various cities range from 1-8% of GDP. Current transport and city design severely restricts the accessibility and limits people earning capability.
Already the citizens are avoiding non motorized trips and shifting to motorized trips in order to escape the discrimination in accessibility and mobility. Several researchers have established that Asian cities which are conducive for walking and cycling with large number of trips with length less than 5 km are increasingly accessed by motorized modes. The cities are yet to invest huge amounts of money on pedestrian accessibility as they are yet to acknowledge pedestrians as road users. Thus it can be concluded that In spite of decades of investment on roads and infrastructure, cities are yet to realize solutions. The problems have magnified and so called solutions have become counterproductive.
There is a huge disconnect between policies, practices and proposed solutions. Past decades of inefficient policies have made us victims of our own solutions. Transport services in cities instead of providing relief; aggravate the problems and causes marginalization of vulnerable group. Increasingly people are getting dissatisfied and becoming “refugees” in their own cities. Thus top of pyramid solutions create more unrest and victims and the need is to plan and provide solutions for vulnerable people.
Transport Planning focused on such refugees would provide equitable solutions!
# # #
The orginal article will be found here - http://cai-asia.blogspot.com/2009/07/transport-refugees-victims-of-unjust.html
Note - this study quotes many websites, research papers and news articles. Please contact the authors in case you would like to have the full references.
About the authors:
Bert Fabian has worked on transport and environmental issues in the last 10 years and has been with the CAI-Asia Center for 7 years. He enjoys the outdoors and cycling in his spare time. Email: bert.fabian@cai-asia.org
Sudhir Gota – a former highway designer has abandoned designing roads to work on sustainable transportation issues. He enjoys doing research. Email: sudhir@cai-asia.org
Both are from Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities
Friday, December 18, 2009
Lessons from COP15 : Staring the challenge in the eyes.
Three Failures – Three new beginnings
It's close to midnight on this fateful Friday the 18th, as COP15 suddenly trudges unfulfilled sadly into our 
past. And as I sort through the debris, I am struggling to figure out what might be the main lessons of this experience. Let me share with you my late-night thoughts concerning three event-shaping failures, or at least stark short-comings which I suggest we will all do well to learn from. After all we have the planet waiting for us.
[This posting is in process. Come back later today for a complete article.]
Contents:
1. The Future of the World Climate Policy Process
2. The Future of the Sustainable Transport Expert Process
3. The Future of World Streets
4. And you
A reader from the Netherlands.
Let us not for one minute be seen as minimizing the enormous effort and high competence that have gone into the process behind the Copenhagen events over the last years. We all owe a huge debt to the people and organizations behind these efforts. COP15 may have given birth to far less than one would have hoped or our planet needed, but it was nonetheless a magnificent effort and all those involved, all those who have worked so hard behind it deeply deserve our respect and thanks.
But at the end of the day, the result that was and is so badly needed was not there. That's a fact.
While I am not in a position to judge all that has gone on at the level of detail that is appropriate for final summing up of the COP15 events and their antecedents (but you can bet there will be plenty of those), I have been following carefully from afar and would nonetheless like now to point to three critical shortcomings that in my view have marred these events and the processes behind them, lessons from which we have much to learn.
These are in turn: (a) The process failure behind COP15; (b) the missed leadership opportunity of our transport-environment expert community; and (c) the failure of this publication to make its voice heard. Let's look at each in turn, and from there see if we draw some useful lessons for what should happen next Note to the reader: This posting is going to be steadily edited and repositioned in the coming days as a result of the flow of comments and suggestions that the author very much hopes we will be receiving here at World Streets. We will however keep on record each original of this editorial, so that the progress, if any, can be traced.
To this end we invite your comments either directly to this piece (see Comment button just below) or if you prefer more privately in an email addressed to the editor via editor.worldstreers.org. In the latter event please let us know if you wish your comments to be shared or prefer to keep them private.
Finally we invite you to share this editorial with friends, colleagues, groups, publications and mailing lists that share these concerns. We need to stir up this debate if all this is to make a difference.
1. The Future of the World Climate Policy Process
We failed for a reason. And if is my view that a good part of that had to do with (a) the process and (b) the actors.
Mumbled justifications, wishful statements and talk-arounds aside, it is fair, I am afraid, to characterize the present process, with enormous variations depending on whom you are looking at, as: well-intentioned, high technical expertise, dominated by wishful-thinking, hubristic, hypocritical, self-centered, incompetent, piecemeal, mechanistic, failed, dangerous, humiliating, worrying, inconsistent, bumbling, last minute and utterly devoid of a practical game plan in the face of the challenges.
And leadership-lite. As we look back on this process we can see the extent to which it highlighted all the stark differences between leadership and administration. Let me try this again: this time we brought in the people who had to understand the changes and make the tough decisions at the tail end of the process. Perhaps we needed a mechanism whereby they are targeted from the very beginning. Think of it as a sale job if you will, for which we have to go to the person with the purse.
It will be clear to all that the problem is not the overarching goal of GHG reductions - whether justified in terms of precautionary principal or hot incontrovertible evidence as sure proof, that goal is or at least should be not up for discussion. No the problem I believe lies in the dilatory manner in which all those concerned, including each of us as voters, knowledge-workers and environmental activists, have attempted to deal with the challenge.
Lesson learned: We now need to shake up the process. Question: Where to start?
We need what in American slang is called a "game changer", something strategic and fundamental that will somehow work to alter the process. Here is one proposal that I hope you will think about.
Let's start by changing the overall profile of the key players, i.e., those actors who have up to now actively dominated the key elements of the process, whether at the international level or at that of the national delegations and other representatives who are in a position to influence not only the events at the time of the final round-up as in Copenhagen over these last weeks, but also in all that goes, that should go before.
A quick peek at the socio-economic profile of the majority of those sitting in the driver's seat this last time around reveals the following strong central trends:• The leadership is predominantly male.
• They are individuals enjoying relatively elevated and privileged positions in society. They have almost to a "man" gone to university (of some sort), have jobs with for the most part salaries and levels security that are far above their respective national norm, and they are either car/owner drivers, or at the very least accept the culture associated with private cars as if not an altogether desirable at least inevitable thing.
• Finally, they are for the most part in the second half of their life span.
In summary, the present selection is too male, too secure, and too old. We need to reach more deeply into our society than that. (And oh yes, I can hear the screams.)
So, if we need to change the process one great way to get started will be to shake up and redistribute the players, those who are charged with thinking and working our way out of the climate box before it is not too late for our struggling planet and those most threatened by inalterable, irreversibly climate change. And to do this in a wide open public way as a statement of volition.
The proposal: All concerned national and international delegations and leading players should now be subjected to the following parity composition :
• 50% female
• 50% non-drivers
• 50% under 35 years of age.
This will be no magic wand in itself, but it would be a visible signal of the will to change. Otherwise what is likely to happen is that the same basic population of earnest, well-intentioned people is likely to trudge off and prepare a next round in Bonn, Mexico City or wherever the next way-station may be. And, unless the whole process is drastically reshaped, they will do what they do best. That is keep digging in the hole that have made thus far.
A quick word on the point concerning stepping up female leadership and participation all along the line and bringing it to something at least close to full gender parity. It is not as open and shut an argument as one may at first think.
A word on the concept of "gender balance".
Image three different types of decision fora: (a) all male, (b) mostly male, and (c) gender balanced.
Now, it is my observation that (a) and (b) invariably end up being pretty much the same in terms of their tone and outcomes, (with the all too rare case where there may be an exceptionally strong, aggressive even woman or women in the miniscule minority. There indeed you may see some sparks fly and different outcomes. But how often does this occur?).
On the other hand when you approach "gender balance" (let’s define it for now as a minimum of 35-40 % participation of the "other sex" - whatever that might happen to be), you open up a very different kind of social, communication and decision environment. The fact is that (a) and even (b) are in almost all cases dominated by male values, even if in most cases these may not be entirely palpable. But they are there and they influence the terms, and the outcome, of the debate and the decision process.
So when it come sorting out our planet, let's all get behind this concept of full gender parity at all stages of the climate debate, and decision process. Because if we don't we are going to lose this war. I promise you.
What else?
Well, it should be pretty clear by now that the whole idea of throwing this ball to an assembly of nations, led by and large by people who for the most part are very far from their own people's day to day lives, concerns and possibilities of adaptation, is probably not the best way to go. Part of the necessary solution no doubt , but certainly not all of it. Something important is clearly missing, a missing link if I may.
If we are looking for someone who is close to people, we certainly have to think about mayors, council persons, and local government more generally. How are we going to factor them into the process in this next stage?
Well without being able to sort out the fine details right here, we can at least answer this question in a first instance and with a certain authority. We can certainly say this: (a) We do need to bring them in and (b) and certainly not at seats on the sidelines. That's a pretty good start. Local government has to become a central part of the process, and now the only question is how to bring them in to play this role.
Historical aside: The first time the phrase "United Nations" began to have currency was when the US Secretary of State Cordell Hull started using it in early 1942 when the United States was at long last getting into the war effort . Despite his track record as a key thinker and mover in the Roosevelt cabinet, Cordell was told in almost exactly these words by the president: "Cordell, it's my war, not yours. You can think about what happens next."
So the good Secretary, sitting in his study, started to use the phrase "United Nations" as his own personal catchword for what soon the press and the world instead preferred to refer to as "the allies" (the earlier favored phrase being "the associated nations" (sound somehow familiar?) was quickly set aside.)
The trick in all that is that the Secretary and his able staff began to think through what kind of international cooperation was going to be needed to ensure that this latest war was not going to lead to another. To which his point of departure was to try to learn the lessons of the by then defunct League of Nations.
What's the point? Well this new organization did indeed get built and one result was that Cordell Hull was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1945, and his work in laying the groundwork for the UN was high on the list of reasons that he was nominated.
The ideal was that these "united nations" would pick up the Western model and become functional democracies, and that in a very short time. Obviously we are not there yet, and what actually has taken place has turned out to be far outside of the vision that original founders had in mind.
But of course we have them and they have to be part of the process. But based on what we have learned over the last years and particularly in Copenhagen last week, they cannot be the only active players. Perhaps it is time to consider in this context setting up some sort of "second chamber" of authority, and in the context of global warming, such a chamber would have to have a strong, informed voice from and for our cities.
Obviously there is plenty of hard work ahead of us all in the coming months. And how is this admirable goal to be achieved. Through commitment and real leadership. My guess is that it will have to start from the countries that are already trying to push the envelope on this. I could make a guess as could you, but let's instead simply launch the challenge and see who picks it up. And once we begin to get the model up and working, I am sure that almost all of the rest will follow. That being after all what leadership is all about. Going first!
2. The Future of the Sustainable Transport Expert Process
Now what about the missed leadership opportunity of the leading edge of the transport/environmental community (including us here at World Streets, the New Mobility Agenda and the author of this piece, by the way)? Is that a detail? Let's have a look.
Executive summary : Huge missed opportunity.
Before digging in here, I would remind the reader of the subtitle of the New Mobility Agenda (www.newmobility.org) which reads as it has for more than a decade: "The Politics of Transportation: New thinking & world-wide collaborative problem-solving". This is the spirit of these comments.
We, the transport sector broadly defined, are undeniably a huge part of the problem, averaging with variations something around 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions total. A fifth of this huge planetary problem is far too big a slice to be swept aside or ignored. But somehow we, collectively, failed even to dent the decision and debate process, and certainly not in a meaningful way.
Now the true tragedy of this is that our sector got right has something very important to offer. Namely that we do in fact know how to start to make those necessary sharp near-term reductions in our share of the planetary load. But our voices were well out of the mainstream.
Here's what I think is the problem. Just about all of us who have pretty high competence in the field of sustainable transport – namely the making of policy, planning and investment decisions in the sector in a way which is not only far more respectful to the environment but also takes a big step ahead in terms of life quality, economic viability and the quality of our cities and communities -- have for better or worse positioned ourselves as specialists, as the people and skill set that is good at making better and softer transportation projects. That's great and indeed very important. But in light of the present planetary emergency that is not enough.
We need not just more and better sustainable transport projects, but we need a whole new mental architecture about how they fit into the greater whole. We now need to shape not just the details but the politics of transportation decision making and investments. In the broadest sense.
Our debilitating short-coming exists at two levels:
The first is at the level of the city or community served. Our goal should not be just to do a good carshare operation, BRT, traffic calming operations, safe bike or clever pricing programs, or any other single worthy project or measure here or there. What we need is to be able to show how to combine all these important bits and pieces into an integrated, multi-level, synergistic city-wide transformative project. A sustainable city project is not only more than the sum of all of its parts, but also requires a new skill set: mastering the politics of transportation.
This is not easy admittedly, because it requires that we directly take on the hydra-headed monster of old mobility, which until now has been the unchallenged auto-pilot way to go: spending taxpayer money to facilitate life for moving cars and warehoused cars (i.e., parking). And we are unlikely to do this one project at a time, at least not in the time span which is dictated by the ongoing climate emergency.
Which I interpret to mean that we now have to become far more programmatic in our approach.
Now this is possible only if we have the full, unwavering support of the city leaders in each case. Hard to get, but if the transformation is ever to be made this is the only way to get the job done.
And as part of this, we all need to be giving more coverage of and support to those brave programs out there that are truly trying to put all the bits and pieces together to create a sustainable, livable, accessible city. We need not only more heroic cities, but also an ability to make all of our best knowledge and expertise available to support their programs. This will require more effective networking of competences and new formulae for bringing them in. And as part of this, we also must be willing to be critical of even our friends and allies when we see that their projects and programs are not going to achieve our necessary high ambitions. (Quietly of course but firmly.)
I am afraid that collectively in our sector we suffer from a fuzzy vision, a blurry perspective on what it takes to make a city transformative project work. Examples abound: There is a whole brave world out there that finds it comforting to point to places like Curitiba, Bogota and your own favorite "transformative city", as success achieved. But the real world is not like that and if you look hard enough (with local partners who live the daily reality of the city's present mobility arrangements) you may well hear quite a different story from them.
Sustainable transport in a sustainable city is not a one-time thing. It exactly resembles parenthood. You can't just do this or that good thing and then let it go. Every day, all day attention to the details is what counts, and what is so very rare.
Our leading cities here in Europe really do hold some excellent examples, though they are few in number. A close look at Copenhagen, Zurich, Vauban or Paris yields some good clues as to what is needed to keep this continuing revolutionary process going. At the end of the day we can call it culture, meaning that for it to work it has to be deeply embedded in the social and political fabric. It is not personal, it is not political in the most narrow sense of the word (i.e., partisan), it is cultural and, incidentally, require active citizenry and democracy that works.
What does this mean in a post-COP15 world? That those of us who have something to offer start to band together more effectively, that we get away from our emphasis on projects and start to think in more global terms, that we get behind any city innovations project that takes on the real challenge of GHG reduction on an area-wide basis together with upgrading the quality of mobility and daily life in the city or region.
To conclude for now. The mechanics of this transformation are relatively simple, at least to list. We need to accomplish two things in parallel. First to cut the physical quantum of motorized traffic (VMT, VKT) by some significant amount (via varying place-sensitive packages of measures and actions which range from the economic to regulatory to physical), and in parallel extend the palette of transportation alternatives in each target cities. And while this is not the place to get into these details here, you will find ample discussions and examples in the page of World Streets and the many sources and programs to which it links.
3. The Future of "World Streets"
World Streets, and behind it the New Mobility Agenda, are, to the best of my knowledge the only programs in the world that have been claiming that the transport sector can, if the leadership is there, obtain big ticket reductions on GHG emissions in a quite short period. It is our vision, at least in and around cities and quite possibly more broadly as well, that these significant reductions can be achieved and demonstrated to the world as proof positive that this approach works and that we can indeed start to take better care of our delicate planet. These claims have not been very seriously taken, including by our expert sustainable transport colleagues and allies. They are considered visionary if not downright peculiar. Gut they are not.
The process, the chain of reasoning that we defend works along the following broad lines:
1. Climate change is the most important, urgent single issue on the international political agenda.
2. Countering climate change opens up a new economic agenda with its own strong growth paths. It does not require stepping down to a reduced life style.
3. Our immediate focus here at World streets, our area of competence, should be on day-to-day transport --in cities, small communities and outlying areas.
4. The policy challenge in the transport sector is to target and obtain significant GHG reductions in the one to five years immediately ahead. 5% reductions can be easily achieved. 10% is possible with strong leaderships
5. The only effective way to reduce transport-generated emissions within this time horizon lies in the (a) immediate, (b) radical, and (c) strategic reduction of motor vehicle traffic.
6. Systematic GHG/traffic reductions impact proportionately on fossil fuel savings, quality of life, environment, personal health, economic renewal, stronger communities, world peace . . . and better and more democratic transport for all.
7. To do this we need to clear the fog and focus 100% on those tools and measures that will specifically permit us to achieve the necessary scale GHG reductions. Starting immediately!
8. While in exact parallel, new and better mobility options must be opened up to all.
9. The leading edge of practice in the sector concurs that this necessarily aggressive policy is (a) feasible, (b) realistic and (c) effective --and has identified a broad spectrum of real-world mobility modes, measures, tools, solutions and strategies that work.
10. We will not be able to achieve these reductions in all places, but we can start and start with strong examples who can illustrate how a low carbon transport is not only possible but desirable.
11. Leadership by example is the only possible path to the degree of policy reform and performance improvement that is required. (Everything else is just conversation.)
[This posting is in process. Come back later for a more complete article.]
Thursday, December 10, 2009
COP15: Radio France interviews World Streets Editor
As part of the massive media effort underway in France in support of the Copenhagen initiative, the editor of World Streets was invited by Ann-Cécile Bras of Radio France International this morning to share his views and reactions to the COP15 process and what might come next. His principal theme: "The problem is not the problem. The problem is the 'solution'." Follow the podcast here. * Below you have access to a podcast of the interview (in French), along with Britton's talking points shared in advance with the interviewer.
RFI, PARIS, 9 December 2009.
Radio France International interview of 9 December 2009
• Par Anne-Cécile Bras, "C'est pas du vent", RFI, mercredi 09 décembre 2009
• Following text from RFI program page for this date: http://www.rfi.fr/contenu/20091130-1-le-regard-deric-britton-lenvironnement"Politicien américain, activiste et fondateur de plusieurs initiatives dans le domaine du développement durable, Eric Britton, réagit à l’actualité et présente son projet New Mobility Agenda, projet sur la durabilité du transport urbain."
• Podcast of interview: http://www.rfi.fr/radiofr/podcast/Podcast_VEN.asp
• A program reference on current Britton work: http://tinyurl.com/ws-sum
• (Note: Following are Britton talking points/notes shared in advance with interviewers)
"The problem is not the problem. The problem is the 'solution' ".
I. COP15 POSTIVE1. The effort: We must recognize the enormous efforts of the IPCC and the UN Secretariat and all involved for getting things thus far up to Copenhagen. These efforts starting in 1992 in Rio, and thus far taking the world, almost literally, or at least the nations of the UN (first signal?) in a step by step process up to today's COP15 goals.
2. The Media: The massive active participation of the media – both worldwide (of course with many exceptions) – but including the extraordinary efforts being made by the media here in France to cover the issues and events – in a balanced and often highly interesting way. (Thinking point: Role of New Media – e.g.; Twitter, Facebook, etc. As a means for communicating and organizing even in Copenhagen as the meeting moves ahead. – Power for the future?)
3. The Achievement: bringing together representatives of 192 nations for focused talks on what is, after all, a highly abstract and at best only incompletely understood set of hotly contested issues, and in the process making the city of Copenhagen the center of our planet for 11 days. This is a massive, historic accomplishment.
II. THREE NOTEWORTHY DEVELOPMENTS IN COPENHAGEN
Keep your eyes on these in the next round:
1. Role of the NGOs – In my view they are not yet being sufficiently integrated into the core of the process.
2. Presence/absence of cities – Only a start. Efforts spearheaded by the C40 program (C40cities Climate Leadership Group www.c40cities.org, etc.a. But not really part of the basic process. Just kind of tacked on.
3. Emerging presence of poorest, most threatened nations as a shaping force (but not there yet)
b. Note active role of Denis Baupin of Paris in pushing this agenda
III. PROGRAMMED TO FAIL? 1. Failure in terms of the fact that, most sadly, no " binding agreement for the post-Kyoto period" will come out of this meeting
2. This is a hard point but one that we need to stare in the eyes to figure out where we go from here.
IV. BUT IT'S NOT A FOOTBALL GAME.1. Let's remember: This is not a football game (with winners and losers).
2. This is a case when everyone goes home a loser.
3. So this is the challenge; How can we build on this and turn the whole thing around.
V. PRESENT DANGERS:1. Giving in to failure of COP15 -- and giving up
2. Putting technology "solutions" at the top of the list
3. Continuing along the same lines
4. So we need a game changer – what might that be?
VI. GET LUCID: 1. The problem is not the problem. The problem is the "solution"
2. Let's build on but notably alter the solution process – specifically in terms of the kinds of people who need to be involved in figuring out what to do next
3. In the past the process has been dominated and mostly led by (a) males, (b) of a certain age, (c) in a much higher than average income bracket, who (d) are "car owner/drivers (if not in fact in their heads as "the right way to live".
4. Think about this: are they actually ready to change their own daily lives as all of us must do if our children are to live on the same planet we were born to
5. So let's change this.
6. The game-change proposal:
VII. THE NEW CLIMATE DEAL – BUILDING BLOCKS- Full parity in all national delegations and the basic UNFCC and IPCC and other decision making, advisory fora
o Women – Full parity at all debate and decision levels of the following critical, results-conditioning groups:
o Non-car owner/drivers (Hard to verify but still a do-able target)
o Under 35 – They are the future, so bring them in to help define it together
Many of you will tell me all the reasons why this is not possible. Perhaps also not desirable. But I know that it is possible and desirable… and necessary. The only challenge being how to get this ball rolling.
VIII. And not to forget . . . PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY 1. Yours
2. Theirs
3. Mine (– see http://personalresponsibility.newmobility.org/
The solutions to the problems our gasping planet is facing will not be in the magic want of technology, nor in the long term (i.e., anything beyond 2015). They must happen now, and the instruments will be us, you and me and them, in our choices and actions in our day to day lives.
# # #
Editor's comment:
These notes were drafted in an attempt to orient the interview team on my evolving thoughts on the COP15 events and process. If you listen to the interview you will hear that some of them actually made their way into the exchanges, and in particular the three part proposal, the "building blocks" of what neither the interviewer nor I were able to render immediately into proper French: "The New Climate Deal".
Since time was short the decision was taken to leave for a later program in January – discussion of the New Mobility Agenda response to the challenges, namely: how can we organize (reorganize) our daily transportation arrangements in order to achieve those "drastic" but necessary and possible 50% reductions in the five years directly ahead.
Stay tuned.
Posts
