Part 2: General Comments and Observations of Panel

From: Lee Schipper, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 2:18 PM

I was a strong supporter of the idea of the WBCSD, helping informally to set it up when I was at the IEA and then Shell Int'l. Long conversations with organizers at both auto and oil companies, potential consultants. Organized 1 of the expert forums (Mexico City, last year) and participated in a few others.

I will read the material and report back here -- rumors fly that the final report is weak -- seems like the fuel companies are very aggressive about clean fuels, which is the easy part, but the car makers are wont to say "less cars than otherwise", and that's really what all gazes into the future are all about. But let me look carefully first.

Lee Schipper
World Resources Institute
Washington, D.C.

Back to top

I produce high toxic potatoes, but also a less high toxic potatoes. I also spend tons of money advertising my high toxic potatoes and a lot less advertising my less high toxic potatoes. Some other part of of the money we make goes to lobbies for contracts related to war in some distant countries.

I am also part of the confederation of high toxic potatoes producers, and since we are unable to redirect our unsustainable investment pattern, we want the government to give us some subsidies. Because the problem is not with us; it is a consumer problem. Does it not sound great?

Carlos Cordero Velásquez
Lima, Peru

Back to top

I think that Lee is on to something. Maybe the main reason for this study is to be able to say that, thanks to efforts initiated by this study, the damage from growing car use will not be as bad as it would have been otherwise.

I want to raise a few other points which I think are relevant:

1) There is massive overcapacity worldwide in the auto industry. There is intense pressure to increase car sales. The situation will only get worse, as China probably plans on trying to export huge numbers of cars and put some of the higher wage countries out of the business.

2) Why should any developing country be asked to conserve when the US, which has 4 percent of the world's population, consumes 25 percent of the world's gasoline? There isn't much hope of persuasion until the US starts to conserve.

3) Technology oriented people like to focus on fuel efficiency of vehicles. But this is roughly half the story. The other half is containing sprawl and not building auto-dependent communities. The US is such a fuel glutton because it has both very large vehicles AND weak land use planning.

4) Consuming land to accommodate autos is especially damaging near most of the great port/transportation hub cities. The reason they were located there in the first place is because of the superior farm land nearby or up river. So, low-density development also eliminates some of the world's best farmland. I give as an example Philadelphia, where I live. There are tens of thousands of empty lots and abandoned houses in the city proper, while McMansions are being built on rich farm land in the surrounding Delaware River basin.

Eric Bruun
Phliadelphia, PA, USA

Back to top

Dear Eric,

Thank you for this initiative. If July 30 is indeed the end, I can only now make some remarks and wish they serve you in these 2 weeks.

1. In the early stage of this WBCSD-project I met with the organisers and told them that their focus cannot credibly claim to cover "mobility". The report should be named more correctly "some first steps towards sustainable AUTOmobility". If not, I urged them to include public transport and the potentials for reduction of physical mobility by ICT, telework, teleconsults, telemeetings, ... Some other members of the same associations should be invited, not only the cars and fuels interests. And how can e.g. city design be included, if 'urban sprawl' is not accepted as a fact of nature ?

2. The (inofficial) strategy of the WBCSD is to 'defend the licenses to operate' of its members as as long and cheaply as possible. It does so by presenting success stories, which support its lobby for voluntary and subsidised actions and against legislation. It mainly - if not only - represents transnational companies and usually agrees with the general business lobby ICC. In 1996 I co-founded and since then represent the pro-active European Business Council for Sustainable Energy. See www.e5.org for its agenda, which includes active support for Kyoto, carbon taxes and trading, elimination of perverse subsidies, etc. also on behalf of small and midsized companies. Also on my own website you find more.

3. This report should be confronted with the Millennium Development Goals - should there be "access to mobility" in it ? - and with the Climate Convention. It is unlikely that the scenario until 2030 projected in this study is compatible with these global superpriorities. It may be a good start, but does not show the appropriate sense of urgency. And how can mobility in developing countries 'leapfrog' and avoid repetition of the fossil, land-intensive route we try to end here ?

Finally, I am convinced of the good intentions of the experts involved in the WBCSD project group. My questions here aim at their bosses, the strategy of the companies and at the governmental decision makers they try to influence.

Good luck and please explain why we have only 2 weeks. In August more experts may have time to contribute. Paul Metz

Dr Paul E. Metz Managing Consultant
Phone +31 26 362 04 50 Mobile +31 653 76 58 85
Email Metz@integerconsult.org URL
http://www.integerconsult.org

Back to top

Hi Eric,

Please include me....

BTW: you may have noticed that there's already one sub-study published on the WBCSD website (see http://www.wbcsd.org/includes/getTarget.asp?type=DocDet&id=NjA5NA - "Additional documentation"). Further sub-studies will be published within the next few weeks.

Thorsten Arndt, Online Communications Manager
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
4, chemin de Conches 1231 Conches, Geneva, Switzerland
Phone: +41 (22) 8393 170 Fax: +41 (22) 8393 131 E-mail: arndt@wbcsd.org

Sign up here for our Business & Sustainable Development newsletters!

Back to top

Eric

I think the report is very disappointing as they do not follow their own rhetoric on eco-efficiency.

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

Peter Newman
Chair of the Western Australian Sustainability Roundtable and Sustainability Commissioner in New South Wales (Australia)

Back to top

Dear Eric and all ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Interestingly, humankind is either "there", or has been there, as most cultures and cities predate car-dominance ... the urban form of cities can be reclaimed for people and HPVs at no cost if "car dominance" is removed or reduced.

So do these "concerns" actually form the basis for a critique/debate of the issues of "sustainability" ... as once the discussion moves on, then it seems to be about something else ...eg how to get to "sustainability" or "moving towards more sustainability", or "becoming more sustainable" ?

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

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

The use of public transport or car-pooling or car-sharing etc does not encourage much change in the demand for these "less than sustainable" modes and/or therefore, may and probably will decrease, rather than increase, demand for less unsustainable lifestyles and settings ie "car free" urban areas may need to be "pedestrian priority" to ensure public transport or car-pooling or car-sharing etc do not provide a reason to continue to not give pedestrians and cyclists priority.

Thus as this is almost impossible "sustainably", is using public transport etc, an answer, but perhaps to the wrong question?

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Dear Colleagues,

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

"Eric. I think the report is very disappointing as they do not follow their own rhetoric on eco-efficiency. I am a strong supporter of WBCSD on many things which it is pioneering but they are going nowhere on mobility.

"It seems that mobility is the last sacred cow of modernism. We can apparently now decouple wealth from energy, from greenhouse, from waste but not from mobility. In our cities the wealthy are choosing to live where they can travel less and the poor are the mobile ones. Its not such a sacred cow if we push hard enough to show that there are real sustainability gains if we set stretch targets for reduced mobility. Peter Newman"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

I agree with Eric Britton's overview of the situation [21 July 04].

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

Two thoughts:

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

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

Both of these points support an emphasis on demand management. While there are many methods (see Todd Litmann's on-line encyclopedia at www.vtpi.org/tdm), one of the most effective is user charging, which London's successful congestion charging scheme has brought to the forefront. A good business analysis of road user pricing -- inspired by London's success -- was provided last year by Deloitte Consulting; see http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/press_release/0,2309,sid%253D%2526cid%253D28904,00.html.

Best,

John Ernst, Director, Asia Region
ITDP - The Institute for Transport and Development Policy

Back to top

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

From: Michael Yeates, Australia
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 2:40 AM

Thanks Eric for this excellent and extremely important initiative (see below).

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

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

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

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

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

In following through the need to clarify the different meanings, perhaps Tom might like to clarify these issues as a participant in the project and the current discussions. Michael Yeates
Convenor, Public Transport Alliance and Bicycle User Research Group
Brisbane, Australia

"Mobility 2030" was given extensive media coverage and publicly greeted as a significant contribution to thinking about sustainable mobility by some of the more important international industry and energy agencies and associations. According to GM's Executive Vice President Tom Gottschalk, a project co-chair, the report is intended to be a catalyst. "The challenges to sustaining mobility are significant," he said, "but they can be met over time, provided society supports constructive approaches and solutions and encourages real understanding and cooperation among stakeholders." He added, "This report contributes positively toward that goal." [ from http://www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/wt_index.htm ]

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