Targeting, Errors, Omissions,

There seems to be a strong consensus here at the outset that the WBCSD basically got off on the wrong track when they decided to concentrate their time and considerable resources on building one more BAU scenario and then by and large stay within the realm of a surprise-free no-policy (or not much policy compared to the needs) world. By doing this they drove right by (if you will forgive the metaphor) the main objective and target of any study that can fairly hope to justify the title, "Meeting the Challenges to Sustainability" (sic.)

In this section, we are attempting to gather views and observations of the group on this, as a step toward finding a way to re-adjust and get these discussions and the debate back on track. The debate and the very specific follow-up that needs to be engendered through this open, determined but at the end of the day highly collegial process.

Of course reducing the impact of individual automobiles is a worthy goal. However, investments in lowering impacts threaten to only make matters worse if they merely serve to rationalize rising automobile use.

I have yet to delve into Mobility 2003 but I'm concerned in general by the missing analysis of the considerable spatial impacts of transport choices and in particular that Goal Six: "Narrow mobility opportunity divides" can be taken as a euphemism for expanding markets for automobiles to the developing world.

To the extent that this report displaces concern over land use impacts of automobility it deserves to be confronted by a more serious and broadly considered analysis.

Robert Cowherd,
Rhode Island School of Design
Providence RI, USA

Back to top

I would like to make the general point that I don't believe that motor vehicles whizzing by every few seconds on local main roads can form any part of a sustainable transport policy. Even if we manage to make it work technically it won't work socially in that our urban environment will remain unpleasant and hostile to pedestrians and cyclists.

As far as I am concerned, any sustainable transport solution must focus on traffic reduction, i.e. enabling people to fulfill their journey purposes with fewer motor vehicle miles -- especially those involving vehicles that aren't available to everyone (i.e. public transport). Whether we can do that without jettisoning automotive interests is another matter.

Simon Norton
Cambridge, UK

Back to top

Dear Eric

I had a short look at their conclusions and could not trace anywhere the word pedestrian or cycling. I am sure that they will defend their own agenda which easily comes in conflict with mine, but still I would hope they would be afraid if their efforts in producing such a report would be undermined by a coalition that points at some very obvious shortcomings and make them responsible to compensate for this by adopting some parts of the really sustainable transport agenda.

Roelof Wittink, Director
I-ce = Interface for Cycling Expertise
Trans 3, 3512 JJ Utrecht, The Netherlands
tel: +31 (0)30 2304521 fax: +31 (0)30 2312384
email (general): i-ce@cycling.nl
email (personal): roelof.wittink@cycling.nl
website: www.i-ce.info

Back to top

Dear Eric et al.

I am sure I am putting my head in the oven in sending you the attached Independent Transport Commission report 'Suburban Future'. It refers only to England, is based on research by Marcial Echenique at Cambridge, and concludes that transport policy for the suburbs (pretty well non-existent in England) will have to be car based.

Of course public transport has a role (currently 4 to 8 per cent of the trips [including walks] of English suburbanites and exurbanites are made by bus and train) but getting a grip on cars is top priority. What does this mean? Fiscal measures to promote hyper-economical vehicles; variable road user charging to promote changes in travel behaviour; and company travel plans because firms like Vodafone and BAA at Heathrow show they can be made to work.

It is not radical but it could make a difference. Fuel at $50 a barrel would be a wonderful addition.

Regards

Terence Bendixson, Secretary
Independent Transport Commission
University of Southampton
c/o 39 Elm Park Gardens, London SW10 9QF
Tel 020 7352 3885

Back to top

From: Lisa Peterson, ITDP, New York, NY
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:00 PM

One specific issue - Do we agree with the report's seven goals? If so, should we propose alternate ways that the report's sponsors could be involved in reaching their goals? If not, should we propose alternative goals?

Most of their press outreach focused on the seven goals. Then again, maybe that approach is too detailed.

Lisa Peterson, Communications Director, ITDP Institute for Transportation and Development Policy

Back to top

Hi,

The car is not the only option for the suburbs. Another is the bicycle, as many of our northern European neighbours have discovered. Just take a look at Groeningen where half of all journeys are made by bike. If buses were fitted with bike racks and trains took bikes at all times, this could be the mode of choice for almost all journeys.

Did they consider this?

Romney Tansley
Travel Light
Croydon, UK

Back to top

Dear Terence,

Thank you, interesting study, which correctly states to be a part of 'work in progress'.

In this stage, many of the 'conclusions' still are still observations and questions.

• What we need from future/current studies is a list of policy options and for each option a list of tasks for its realisation.
• And with each task clearly defined the first responsible organisation and how to activate it.
• E.g the fuel efficiency of cars is decided on the EU-level, parking costs in the municipality.
• The lists should be politics-proof: have a solution for each potentially governing ideology at decision moments.

Dr Paul E. Metz, Managing Consultant
Velp, The Netherlands

Back to top

Dear Paul

You are spot on. We have mapped the suburban territory in England and, with other work by Stephen Glaister, made clear that it is going to be in the front line for worsening travel conditions unless road user charging is used to modify travel behaviour.

Now we have to do comparable work on other policy options such as company travel plans, hyper-efficient cars (production, use, recycling), safe cycling to suburban schools etc. Public transport is more difficult in the suburbs but seeing a future for buses, taxis and demand responsive limos is also likely to be part of the answer. As for land use, Marcial Echenique, our consultant, has a big research contract on designing sustainable additions to existing towns or cities and restructuring existing suburbs to reduce dependency on cars of those who live in them. Cambridge is already a test bed for some of those land use policies.

Terence Bendixson, Secretary
Independent Transport Commission University of Southampton
c/o 39 Elm Park Gardens, London SW10 9QF

Back to top

Just a couple of comments.

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

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

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

1. Car manufacture uses a lot of resources.

2. Car garaging uses a lot of space.

3. If people have invested a lot of money in buying a car, they are not likely to forswear its use.

4. My belief is that a move from individual to shared car ownership if the biggest single step one can make towards making transport sustainable.

Simon Norton

Back to top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric Bruun
Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA

Back to top

Hi Eric (Bruun) ...

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

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

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

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

So as I said at the end of my previous email .... It should be technically possible to create a "car" that cannot harm or threaten pedestrians and cyclists.

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Your turn

Let us here from you on this as well. You can either post your comments through the @Forum, or send them direct to us. In both cases they will be integrated into these sections here as well as the final report.

Via Group mail to the New Mobility @Forum

Or post via private mail direct to organizers

May we ask that you sign your notes with your name, titles, institutional affiliation and city/country? You will understand of course why we think it important for all concerned to know who these messages are coming from.

* Click to go to Report Contributions

Home

About

Events

Message Center

New Mobility Cafe

Contact

Top

Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France, Europe. T: +331 4326 1323
Copyright © 1994-2004 The Commons ® All rights reserved.
Last updated on 28 July 2004