Monday, September 27, 2010

We have moved



http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/



Start here


Welcome to the new home of World Streets, the planet’s only sustainable transport daily newspaper. You will come in to our second operating platform for the journal, after a year and a half working with Blogger at http://newmobilityagenda.blogspot.com/. blogger gave us a great starting point, but as we moved ahead we found that it does not have the tight organization and flexibility that is required when we find ourselves trying not only to post interesting articles and useful information day after day, but also to provide a deep resource with considerable content . . . and some handy ways of finding it when you need it. So we shopped around and eventually came up with this WordPress frame which does a much better job, given our particular requirements.

With that in view, we would suggest that on your first visit you spend a bit of time working your way across this little top menu, which hopefully explains itself. We also would respectfully propose that you have a good look at the content and links which are organized in the right-most column here. Each of these small devices is intended to help you dig deeply and efficiently into the close to one thousand references and messages that have been logged here since W/S started publication in early 2009. It would be a great pity were this intellectual patrimony to disappear into the ethers.

Please note:
This site has two sets of functions. The first is as a daily and weekly journal reporting critically on leading (and lagging) projects and events world-wide. This basically takes up the top half of the site, and includes some handy tools for researching and identifying past articles, signing in to receive handy daily or weekly notifications on articles, monthly archives, .

The lower part of the site provides a series of carefully selected key links and sources (left column, in all close to two hundred, yet to be completed), and a Combined Search Engine (Knoogle) which points to all of them for handy one click screening and reference. The second column provides the reader with a handy place to scan the latest messages and exchanges of a dozen of our New Mobility discussion fora.

.

--> Read on:

Sunday, August 22, 2010

For the latest on World Streets, please click to http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/

As of late June, we started to test and develop another -- and we believe considerably improved -- website and software platform for World Streets which you can now access freely at http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/. For all these weeks and until such time that we were completely satisfied with advantages of the new structure, we maintained the two in rough parallel. But as of today we now are ready to cut the link and formally move over the entire journal and its databases and working tools once and for all to the new address.

We hope you enjoy the new World Streets, find it a real improvement in clarity and usability, and as always that you will keep us informed of your thoughts, suggestions and proposals for what is, after all, the world's only independent sustainable transport collaborative newspaper.

But not to forget, there is a lot more to the New Mobility Agenda than just World Streets, so by way of reminder let us also draw your attention to the following projects and programs:

* The first international conference of the World Share/Transport Forum – which is taking place in Kaohsiung from 16 – 19 September. And if you can't join us in Kaohsiung, be sure that you check out the program at Www.kaohsiung.sharetransport.org (and if you prefer Chinese at http://www.kaohsiung-sharetransport.com.tw/)

* The New Mobility Partnerships collaborative program, for which you will find all the main details at www.newmobility.org

* The World Carshare Consortium – since 1999 at www.worldcarshare.com

* World Transport – the discussion group and site behind the Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice at www.worldtransportjournal.org

* The venerable World Car Free Days collaborative – at www.worldcarfreedays.com

* Value Capture/Tax Reform Forum at http://www.landcafe.org and its highly contentious discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandCafe/

All of these programs are continuing as indicated, and we hope we shall be seeing you there.

You can also follow World streets via

* Facebook at facebook.worldstreets.org

* Twitter at https://twitter.com/worldstreets

Eric Britton,
Managing Editor

| Skype: newmobility | +331 7550 3788 | 8, rue Jospeh Bara | Paris 75006 France

--> Read on:

Thursday, August 12, 2010

"Time to count the spoons": Alan Atkinson on sustainabilty back-peddling

Dr. Samuel Johnson reminded us some time back that "When a man proclaims his honor loudly at the table, it's time to count the spoons". Which is what our guest editorials Alan Atkisson is going for us today as he comments on loudly proclaimed sustainability initiatives from Europe and America. Oops. Something appears to be missing here.

Sustainability under assault


Reading the news has not been easy for champions of sustainability in recent weeks, at least in the Western World. That means the news has not been kind to the interests of future generations, to new economic thinking, to accelerated innovation, to long-term prosperity, or to life on Earth, for that matter. It almost feels as though sustainability itself is under assault, at least from some national governments -- just when its value in economic terms has been solidly established, and the need for it in environmental and social terms has risen dramatically.

Let's review the situation.

First, the new UK government axed the Sustainable Development Commission (www.sd-comission.org.uk). This Commission, led by Jonathan Porritt, has been an extraordinary source of innovative thinking and clear-sighted critique for the past decade. Its impact on the UK has been very important ... but its impact has also been global. And as a "cost-cutting" measure, it's wrong-headed.

The Commission was costing the UK government roughly 3 million pounds per year, but by following (some of) its advice on energy conservation and the like, the UK government was already saving many times that amount -- and could have saved a lot more.

Outside the UK, the Commission's reports helped to advance and even to reframe the debate on sustainability -- especially Commissioner Tim Jackson's landmark report, "Prosperity without Growth" (now a book, published by Earthscan. Hint: Download the original report free while the Commission's website is still working. Click here >> )

Across the pond in the United States of America, energy and climate change legislation died in the Senate -- despite the fact that a supposedly pro-climate-action majority of 60 Democrats sits there. Barring a political miracle, the Senate may have wasted the best historical opportunity to get something serious into US law, and it has at least wasted precious time.

Crossing the Atlantic again, France has earned positive headlines for its recent legislative commitment to sustainability, both its new "Grenelle" package of laws, and its recently released national strategy on "développement durable" (interestingly, many languages use a word meaning "durable" or "enduring" in place of "sustainable").

But at the same time, my colleagues in France tell me that actual money for sustainability programs has been drastically cut; and according to the French papers, the new national strategy lacks "any detail ... on how the necessary investments for the realization of its objectives are to be financed." (Les Echos, 27 July 2010)

Meanwhile, the news on the state of the planet has not been heart-warming, either. A recent global report on biodiversity carries the scary title "Dead Planet, Living Planet" -- a glass-half-empty message if ever there was one. Ironically, we are losing to fight to retain biodiversity, even as we get better at figuring out how much life on Earth is actually worth to us in cold, hard cash -- somewhere between 21 and 72 trillion dollars per year, according to the United Nations Environment Program's new report on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. That's roughly equivalent to the entire annual Gross World Product ($58 trillion in 2008).

Meanwhile (again), a new NOAA report is out on climate change, and US and UK scientists are using words like "undeniable" and "glaringly obvious." Even Russia's President Medvedev is talking like a climate activist these days, as his country swelters in record-breaking heatwaves.

So ... what's a sustainability optimist to do, in the face of such pessimistic news?

Veteran planet-watcher Lester Brown, lecturing in Stockholm, was asked how he maintained optimism in the face of the gathering gloominess. "I get that question a lot, and I have a one-word answer," he joked. "Bourbon."

Lester's real answer, of course (both at that lecture, and as evidenced by his own years of extraordinary work), is not alcohol -- it's action.

And not just any action: strategic action, designed to create the most powerful impacts possible, in the shortest amount of time.

Because that's what we're all working for, and that's what the world needs.

Now more than ever.

# # #

About the author:

Alan AtKisson began professional work on sustainability in 1988, serving as executive editor of the pioneering journal In Context: A Quarterly of Humane Sustainable Culture. In 1990, he and other colleagues co-founded the Sustainable Seattle initiative, later recognized by the United Nations as a model project in urban sustainability and indicator development. Also in 1990, Alan began to introduce the concept of "sustainability change agents" through workhops and lectures, and to develop the tools and methods that are now called the ISIS Accelerator and used world wide. In 1992, Alan began consulting on sustainability and founded the small business that has grown into the AtKisson Group. - www.atkisson.com

A few closing words from Alan on their current work in this area:
At the moment, my publisher Earthscan and I are planning the re-launch of two of my books in new versions. Both of them are about what it takes to be optimistic and to continue making positive, strategic, accelerated change for sustainability -- no matter what the odds.

So be on the lookout this November for the new Believing Cassandra: How to be an Optimist in a Pessimist's World(you can already pre-order the fully updated new edition). Also, my second book, The ISIS Agreement, will appear in paperback then with a new introduction, cover ... and even a new title. I'll keep the (very optimistic) new title for the ISIS book secret for now ... but the new subtitle should give you a taste of it: "How to Make Positive Change in Difficult Times."

--> Read on:

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

1-minute movies

If you click today to the home page of the 2010 Kaohsiung Conference of the World Share/Transport Forum at www.kaohsiung.sharetransport.org, you will see that the organizers have just this morning added the first of an intended new cycle of “1-minute movies” by way of livening up the conference preparations, and as a quick introduction to the concepts of sharing in transport as a sustainability strategy. We have long been proponents of the imaginative use of media of all sorts to get the messages of sustainable development and social justice out to a world that is for the most part more puzzled than antagonistic.
It is our dead-serious intention to make use of all the tools and tricks we can lay our hands on to get the basic message of the World Share/Transport Forum program and associated events and conferences across: namely, that we really should be trying to understand better what happens if people start to think more in terms of not things, physical objects, but of services, i.e., whatever it is that they really need.

Our goal in selecting these little films is not to try to convert people in a single minute or two to our priorities and our way of thinking, but rather to familiarize them just a bit in a soft way about the fact that there are, in fact, other ways of seeing and doing things when it comes to getting around in cities. We want to open a few doors, but no pushing.

We intend in this section to provide a certain number of very short videos that in our view can help get these points across. And since many in our audience at Kaohsiung are not familiar with English as their main working language, we shall try to limit ourselves to videos which are image- and not word-heavy. Today you have our first three candidates. Your comments are most welcome. Perhaps you will have some candidates to support the program. If so, you know where to find us.


- - - > Click here to go to the 1-minute movies. (See top menu, right)



--> Read on:

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

"They will solve Delhi’s problem of congestion for good."

Bravo! Bravissimo!!! I love this golden sentence (says he gritting his teeth). Solutions, solutions. It's a wonderful world.

If you recall you heard from us last week concerning the wondrous “Straddling bus" project that so surprisingly popped in from an ambitious (?!?) entrepreneur in China -- but not about to be undone by the competition to the north, here you have some comments coming from India about two miraculous "zip over" projects in one Indian city, Mumbai, which offer some new wrinkles on our "let's build our way out of it" approach to sustainable transportation. That said, I might add that we thought this particular horse was actually already dead -- but apparently there is still some twitching there. We should really be finding the way to put it out of its (our actually) misery.

Promises, promises... (via "India lives in her cities too!")

Two news reports in Mumbai this week promise drivers of personal vehicles the opportunity to "zip over" congested roads. The first project is a proposed flyover over the western railway line. The current underbridge across the train track is too narrow and prone to getting flooded during rains. In all fairness, I don't think that is so bad an idea. Train tracks have a tendency to break all connectivity between the eastern and western portions of the locality, and it does help if a sufficient number of bridges exist.

The other project is a 17 km freeway from downtown Mumbai (Colaba) to the residential suburb of Chembur – a middle-class residential suburb. This project will involve building over salt pan lands, and MMRDA will also be building elevated roads over very old and congested neighbourhoods where relatively poor people live.

But what interests me is the use of the phrase “zip over” in both cases. . . . Read More

via India lives in her cities too!

--> Read on:

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Kaohsiung 2010: The Third Way of getting around in cities

Share/transport -- the largely uncharted middle ground of low-carbon, high-impact, available-now mobility options that span the broad range that runs between the long dominant poles of "private transport" (albeit on public roads) and "mass transport" (scheduled, fixed-route, usually deficit-financed public services) at the two extremes. The third way of getting around in cities? Come to Kaohsiung in September and let's talk about sharing.

World Streets and the New Mobility Agenda have for a long time been aggressive supporters of the shared transport modes – carsharing, ridesharing, taxisharing, bikesharing, street sharing and the like. So it should surprise no one that we have gotten behind the concept of creating a World Share/Transport Forum and then, as the first major international event, collaborating with the City of Kaohsiung in Taiwan and the Chinese Institute of Transport (CIT) to organize the forthcoming Kaohsiung 2010 Share Transport conference that will be taking place from 16-19 September, in just 48 days from today. Want to follow it or better yet to get involved? Here you will find an introduction to the conference and its main parts, and for more we invite you to check out the website at www.kaohsiung.sharetransport.org. (Or if you prefer Chinese - http://www.kaohsiung-sharetransport.com.tw/)

First International Share/Transport Forum –
Kaohsiung City, Taiwan -
16 – 21 September 2010



1. Introduction
If you need milk every day would you buy a cow? Of course not -- anyway, where would you park your cow?

Why therefore do we insist on owning a car when what we actually want is mobility? Instead of parking hassles, with carsharing we have the use a car when we need it, but none of the tribulations or costs of ownership.

In some of the world’s most successful and livable cities, we are already entering into a world of new mobility practices that are changing the transportation landscape. It has to do with sharing, as opposed to outright ownership.

The city of Kaohsiung together with an international team from the Chinese Institute of Transport (CIT) and supported by the New Mobility Partnerships is organising three-day international forum to take place from 16 - 19 September 2010, in which professionals working at the leading edge of these matters will come together from a number of countries, to examine together the concept and practice of sharing transport in the 21st century -- and to discuss future applications for Taiwan, China, Asia and beyond.

Who should attend -

  • Researchers, city administration, operators, large public sector employers, activists, NGOs, students, media, and suppliers to the sector



  • From Taiwan, China, South-East Asia and all others interested



  • Language: Chinese/English. Full translation of all sessions



Website/Details: www.kaohsiung.sharetransport.org and www.kaohsiung-sharetransport.com.tw (Chinese)

"On the whole, you find wealth more in use than in ownership."
- Aristotle. ca. 350 BC


2. Kaohsiung welcomes first World Share/Transport Forum


The Mayor and City Council of Kaohsiung are pleased to announce their hosting of the first World Share/Transport Forum from 16 to 19 September this year.

Transport sharing is an important worldwide trend, one that is already starting to reshape at least parts of some of our cities. It is a movement at the leading edge of our most successful (and wealthiest and livable) cities, but one which as yet is poorly understood.

The World Forum in Kaohsiung - the first of its kind – is bringing together leading thinkers and share/transport practitioners and authorities from across Taiwan, Asia and the world, to examine the concept of shared transport (as opposed to individual ownership) from a multi-disciplinary perspective, with a strong international and Chinese-speaking contingent.

The conference will delve into innovative trends and accomplishments of specific shared transport modes and their potential applications in the Taiwanese and East Asian context.

  • How can carsharing succeed in Taiwan and China?

  • Can ridesharing systems be developed for Taiwanese commuters?

  • Has bikesharing in Kaohsiung and Taipei been a success -- and are there lessons from abroad to improve their operation?

  • How can we include the taxi as a vital element of public transport?

  • Share/Transport strategies for larger employers: Worker well-being and cost savings

  • Redesigning city streets for new (shared) uses

  • What are links between Share/Transport, public transport and city planning?

  • What potential do innovative ICT applications offer Share/Transport?


These are some of the questions that leading international experts are coming to Kaohsiung to discuss at the conference. Contributors thus far include representatives from public agencies, universities, research teams, public service groups and operators from China, Colombia, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Singapore, the UK, and the USA, and of course Taiwan.

Places are limited. Discounts available for CIT members, Students and Early Bird bookings.

To book your place please complete the registration form overleaf or see further details at www.registration.kaohsiung.sharetransport.org



3. Conference program












Thursday, 16th September. International Conference Hall

09:00 Opening session : Share/Transport in the 21st century: Who is going to take the lead?

  • Welcome Speeches (3)


Keynote addresses:

  • What is S/T - International state of the art overview. Eric Britton (France/USA)

  • Why Share/Transport in Taiwan and Asia? Jason Chang (Taiwan)

  • Share transport and public health - WHO rep. to be confirmed

  • Work plan for conference and associated events Susan Lin (Taiwan)


11:00~12:30 Session I: Carsharing (Car clubs in Britain.)
Session leaders: Michael Glotz-Richter, Germany. Lewis Chen, Singapore.

14:00~15:30 Session II: Ridesharing/Employer Share/Transport
Session leaders: Ali Clabburn (UK). Rory McMullan (UK/Taiwan)

16:00~17:30 Session III: Bikesharing (Public bicycle systems)
Session leaders: Eric Britton (France/USA). H.W. Chang (Taiwan)









Friday, 17th September. International Conference Hall

09:00~10:30 Session IV: DRTS and Taxi Sharing
Session leaders: (To follow)

11:00~12:30 Session V: Street-sharing. Integrating private, public and share transport in the city
Session leaders: Dorothy Chan (Hong Kong). David Ta-Wei Poo (Taiwan.) Paul Barter (Singapore)

14:00~15:30 Session VI: ICT applications for sharing transportation
Session leaders: Taka Morikawa (Japan). Jason Chang (Taiwan)

16:00~17:30 Session VII. The Fine Art of Sharing in transport: Behavior, communications, policy and practice
Session leaders: CarlosFelipe Pardo (Colombia). Paul Barter (Singapore). Eric Britton (France/USA).

17:30~18:30 Session VIII. Young researcher/cooperative program
Session leaders: Enrico Bonfatti (Italy). Rory McMullan (UK/Taiwan)









Saturday, 18th September. International Conference Hall

09:00~10:30 Session IX: Conclusions, Recommendations, Closing Strategy, Next Steps
Session leaders: CarlosFelipe Pardo (Colombia). Jason Chang (Taiwan).

11:00~12:30 Session X: Mayor's Roundtable
Moderator: David Ta-Wei Poo (Taiwan)
(Invitational event. Contact Help Desk for application.)

14:00~15:00 Session XI: Creating a New Mobility Management platform/network in Chinese
Session leaders: Enrico Bonfatti (Italy). Rory McMullan (UK/Taiwan)

15:30: Kaohsiung City visits (Details to be announced)









Sunday, 19th September. Kaohsiung Car Free Day





4. Speakers/Panelists

The Kaohsiung Task Force is the interdisciplinary expert team behind the conference, including the distinguished international speakers, contributors, lead panelists, and those directly involved in the organization of the event.













5. Conference Booking Form

Please book me for delegate participation in the 2010 World Share/Transport Forum

[ ___ ] Full Conference participation: 16-18 Sept. 2010

[ ___ ] Request invitation to Mayor's Round Table: 18 Sept. (Invitational event. Places limited)

[ ___ ] I plan to participate in the Kaohsiung Car Free Day ceremonies - 19 Sept.

Delegate Details

Name: __________________________________________________

Position: ________________________________________________

Organization: _____________________________________________

Address: _________________________________________________

Tel: ____________________ Email: ___________________________

Accommodation:

  • I will need accommodation for the nights of [ _______ _________ ]


Payment Details

I enclose a check / please invoice me to the above address. Please make all checks payable to CIT - Chinese Institute of Transportation

  • Early registration (before 1 September) TWD - 3,250.00 (US$ 100.00)

  • After 1 September: TWD 5,000.00 (US$ 150.00)

  • Kaohsiung residents - apply for free entry to following address

  • Students: Supply proof of current registration


To book or if you require further information please contact international project coordinator:
Rory McMullan - roryer@gmail.com Tel. +44 (0) 7916 342 135 Skype: roryer

For online bookings please see - http://registration.kaohsiung.sharetransport.org/






· Has bikesharing in Kaohsiung and Taipei been a success, and are there lessons from abroad to improve their operation?



--> Read on:

Monday, August 2, 2010

Transport and the lock-in problem

Politicians are reluctant to confront the economic and environmental costs of transport. The task: to reduce the demand for mobility. I probably don't write about transport as much as I ought to, and that was brought home to me at an event on The Future of Transport in Leuven in Belgium, at which I was also a speaker. There's a case for regarding transport as a climate emergency, given that it accounts for about a quarter of Europe's carbon emissions, and that in the last decade (unlike pretty much every other sector) emissions from transport have continued to grow sharply.

And before I continue, even if you’re a climate sceptic, this represents a significant policy issue: the transport sector (at least, the non-human powered transport sector) is 97% dependent on fossil fuels. As these become scarcer, more expensive, and more prone to interruption, we will have an incipient social and economic problem which is serious enough to prod policy makers. … Read full text of article

via thenextwave

--> Read on:

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Dancing around the carbon tax in the United States Senate

Climate and climate policy are more than moderately complicated issues, as we all are well aware. But at the end of the day we know too there are a certain >number of basic underlying truths that shape these issues and outcomes, which one either grasps or one does not. And in this regard, there can be little doubt that the most single powerful single lever available for slowing down climate damage is carbon-reduction -- and by far the most powerful way to achieve this is through a well-fashioned carbon tax. You put a price on carbon emissions, a high price preferably, and you can be sure that they will come down. Economics 101. But say this to a hundred bright people, and 99 will immediately, without losing a beat, look you in the eye and start to list all the reasons why this cannot be done. But it can be done.

And when it comes to our bailiwick here on World Streets, namely sustainable transport and sustainable cities, what we get with these carbon reductions are many of the things we need to do anyway to move toward these broader goals. Higher fossil fuel prices work to reduce motorized traffic. That's a pretty good start because less traffic on our roads means less environment damage, reduced pressures on scarce natural resources, fewer traffic fatalities, quieter and safer cities, improved public health, economic renewal, stronger communities and world peace. But once we have that carbon tax in place, we then need to use all our ingenuity and efforts to ensure social equity, protect the economy and create better and fairer mobility systems for all. Which of course is what World Streets is all about. Now let's hear what Charles Komanoff of New York City has to say about how the US Senate is facing up to these challenges.

Cap-and-trade, let us hope, is dead. And now, we may begin!


- by Charles Komanof


And now, ve may begin?


Readers of a certain age, and a certain literary bent, will recognize the words of Alexander Portnoy’s psychiatrist, spoken at the close of Philip Roth’s transgressive 1969 novel, Portnoy’s Complaint.

After lo these many years, they popped into my head today as I read that Senate Democrats had finally thrown in the towel on an energy bill that would have included a partial cap-and-trade provision for limiting carbon emissions from power plants. The bill, written by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, was touted by Washington insiders and some major environmental groups as this year’s last hope for federal climate legislation. Yet it would have relied on carbon offsets and other dodges to postpone the day of reckoning with true, visible carbon emissions pricing — the cornerstone of meaningful climate policy.

Instead, reported the New York Times, Senate Democrats will pursue a limited bill aimed at increasing oversight of oil drilling and tightening energy efficiency standards — with no direct assault on climate-destabilizing CO2. (For a later Times story amplifying the first, click here.)

Yes, now, we may begin — “we” being Americans who care about climate, sustainability, and Earth — to unite around a climate approach that is effective, equitable and transparent enough to win the support of our fellow citizens and a Congressional majority.

I’m referring of course to the idea advanced by climatologist Jim Hansen as fee-and-dividend and by the Carbon Tax Center as a revenue-neutral carbon tax, by which fossil fuel extractors and importers pay the U.S. Treasury fees pegged to the carbon content of the coal, oil and gas they take from the ground or bring into U.S. ports, and the Treasury distributes the revenues to all Americans via equal monthly dividends (“green checks”), or by tax-shifting from regressive taxes such as payroll taxes.

The Senate’s antipathy to even the partial cap-and-trade proposed by Sen. Kerry will doubtless be spun as indicating that for the foreseeable future the well for climate legislation has been poisoned. The Carbon Tax Center says that the opposite may be true: with cap-and-trade out of the way at last, the political well can begin to be de-toxified so that the effective, equitable and transparent carbon fee-and-dividend can be seriously considered.

For this to happen, however, the Big Green groups like EDF and NRDC that for years have dominated climate discourse among environmentalists, and that convinced Congressional Democrats and the White House that the only way to “put a price on carbon” in America was via carbon cap-and-trade, will have to abandon that approach and allow others, and themselves, to try a fresh start.

It will be said that cap-and-trade failed because Fox News and other climate deniers branded it as “cap-and-tax” and, therefore, a carbon tax (or fee) cannot possibly succeed. And it is true that carbon cap-and-trade was looked to, years ago, as a way to build on the success of acid rain cap-and-trade, win over Republican free-marketers, and put a price on carbon without having to parade the dreaded t-a-x word before the public.

In the event, though, carbon cap-and-trade did none of these things.

Instead, Big Green’s pursuit of carbon cap-and-trade tethered the climate movement to complex financial instruments and branded us as servants of Wall Street elites. It opened the legislative floodgates to off-the-charts Beltway deal-making that rightly repulsed the public. Perhaps most importantly, the co-optation of climate advocacy by the cap-and-traders robbed us of the high moral ground we might have shared with abolitionists, suffragists, labor agitators and civil rights workers — true American heroes who fought to liberate our society of oppression and injustice.

If you’re in the climate movement, you recognize that fossil fuels’ assault on Earth’s climate is an ultimate form of oppression and injustice: of rich against poor, of the profligate against the frugal, of the present against the future. Ending this assault will require concerted action on many fronts; and it starts by internalizing the climate-damage costs of coal, oil and gas into their prices, so that the free ride for fossil fuels is ended and all of the alternatives, from energy efficiency, renewable energy and low-carbon fuels to conservation-based behavior and mindfulness toward energy consumption, may compete fairly and effectively.

Political action to accomplish this must be done in bright sunlight, not in Beltway shadows.

Cap-and-trade, let us hope, is dead. And now, we may begin!

# # #

About the author:

Charles Komanoff “re-founded” NYC’s bike-advocacy group Transportation Alternatives in the 1980s, helped found the Tri-State Transportation Campaign in the 1990s, and co-founded the Carbon Tax Center in 2007. Charles’s writings include books, articles, and landmark reports such as Subsidies for Traffic, Killed By Automobile, and the Kheel Report on financing free transit in New York City. A math-and-economics graduate of Harvard, Charles lives with his wife and two sons in lower Manhattan.
A first round of comments are available on this piece were published on the 22nd and can be accessed here.


--> Read on:

Monday, July 26, 2010

Let's give cars more competition! New options for urban mobility

- by Paul Barter, National University of Singapore

What competition do cars have in your city? I don't mean competition between Toyota, Ford or Hyundai. I don't even mean competition between cars and public transport for this morning's work trips. I am talking about competition between a car-owning lifestyle and a set of alternatives that add up to a whole lifestyle, creating a complete 'mobility package' attractive enough to make car ownership feel optional.


In places like Manhattan or Hong Kong or the inner cities of Zurich, Paris, Tokyo or London a lifestyle without your own car is already an attractive option even for wealthy people. But could we extend the range of places where not having a car is an excellent lifestyle choice? Can we make car use more provisional and less locked-in to our liefstyles and our urban systems? How?

Here is a presentation I gave last year which tackles some of these issues in a non-technical way.


* Click following link for slide presentation:

Under-appreciated and neglected urban transport policy opportunities (and reframing competition in urban transport)


In this presentation I claim that the following issues in urban transport are under-appreciated and neglected.

  • Public transport integration and comprehensiveness;

  • Short trips between 1 and 4 km;

  • Taxis and car-sharing;

  • Car ownership cost structures;

  • Parking policy.

They have in common that they seem much more important when we focus our minds on competing with the car-owning lifestyle and not just to get people out of their cars for specific trips.

My central messages were:
  • Urban transport policy for liveable cities can and should dare to compete successfully with car ownership.

  • Seeing the car-owning lifestyle as our primary competition expands and enriches our policy horizons.

  • Imagining excellent mobility without owning a car prompts a more critical look at car ownership arrangements.





I think this line of thinking offers hope for gradually offering a real alternative to the car-owning lifestyle. It brings together themes I have written about before, here, here and here.

People who have been thinking along similar lines include Robin Chase, Chris Bradshaw, Eric Britton, the late Bill Mitchell, and Susan Zielinski.

For more detail on this approach to competing with cars see my working paper on the issue.

# # #

About the author:
Paul Barter is an Assistant Professor in the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore where he teaches infrastructure policy, urban policy, transport policy and an introduction to public policy. He has published studies of transport policy in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. His current research interests are in innovation in transport demand management, public transport regulation, and contested priorities in urban transport policy.

You might also like:




--> Read on:

Thursday, July 22, 2010

The Changing Context for NGO Campaigning

The consistent two-punch theme of World Streets is that (a) we are losing the sustainability wars (no argument there, eh?) because (b) we are quite simply not very bright. Look, how complicated can it be? When it comes to the issues of sustainable transport we really do know what to do (i.e., get our act together and start to rip carbon out of the system, and do it now). But we are somehow not able to get our fundamental messages across. We also have this communication problem. So when someone like Keith Sutter from Sydney has an idea for us, well we listen and try to learn. Let's have a look and see if we can learn something.

THE NEW ERA OF NGO CAMPAIGNING: THE CHANGING CONTEXT FOR CAMPAIGNING

I was asked recently to comment on some proposed campaigns by an environmental non-governmental organization (NGO). Here are some general comments on the way that the campaigning context today is now much more complicated than it was.

1. From “Broadcasting” to “Narrowcasting”

One change has been the move from “broadcasting” (a small number of, for example, TV stations transmitting to a large number of people) to “narrowcasting” (a large number of TV stations transmitting to a narrow, specific group of people).

I joke in my speeches that if a stranger in a capital city (with a large number of potential radio stations to choose from) were first to tell me about which is their favourite radio station, then I would quickly know a lot about them. For example, a person who listens to a “serious talk” publicly-funded radio station is unlikely to also listen to commercial contemporary music stations

Alongside the traditional media, we now of course also have the social media eg Facebook: even more “narrowcasting”.

In summary, I suggest we have “de-massified” society so that it is now impossible to fashion one standard message that will suit - or reach - all audiences at any one time.

2. Who are the “opinion formers” now?

In the old days, it was usually necessary to reach only a small number of senior people (usually pale, stale, males) to change government policy. These were often called the “opinion formers”: people (usually men) with a disproportionate amount of influence in the media.

Now it is necessary to operate across a variety of media, targeting a variety of people because in a de-massified society it is no longer possible to always see who has the power to influence others.

“You never know which piece of coal blows the whistle”. You can never be sure what event or form of media coverage could trigger an avalanche.

The Susan Boyle phenomenon is a good example. The video clip of her stunning appearance on “Britain’s Got Talent” reached Australia a day after it was broadcast in the UK (via Internet users forwarding it on) and by Thursday of the same week it had become the most watched You Tube clip that day in the US. By the following weekend she was in negotiations over a recording contract. She had become a global “hit” in about a week.

In summary, I suggest an NGO needs to use a variety of media to reach a variety of people with a variety of messages (albeit around a common theme). The “down-market” commercial media and social networks are just as important as the “serious” publicly-funded media outlets,

3. Rise of Epistemic Communities

A by-product of the de-massified society is the rise of epistemic communities: where people think the same thoughts and only communicate with each other in that same small group. Despite the alleged internationalizing effects of globalization, we still live in small communities – only now they cross national borders. An Indian legal expert, for example, may have more in common with follow legal experts in (say) the US or Europe, than with the peasants outside that person’s own home.

The global financial crisis is a good example of this. The finance industry all had the same ideas about how to make money and ignored the warnings of “outside” people, for example, those concerned about society getting into too much debt. Meanwhile the financial regulators (often in the same capital city district a few blocks away) failed to do their own job because they were in their own epistemic community.

The implication here is that the urgency that members of an environmental NGO may feel for their own particular issue may be not shared by most other people in other epistemic communities.
In the example of environmental NGO campaigns, most people in western countries would probably feel that everyday life is actually getting better and that there is not much of an environmental problem. They do not share the fears of environmental NGOs which may be worried about, for example, climate change. Indeed, I grew up in post-war London – the evil, thick fogs of my childhood have long since gone and the Thames is cleaner now than when I was a child. I happen to share the concerns of environmental NGOs but I can also see how a person in my situation could easily claim that life is getting better and better compared with what they would have known in their childhood.

The risk is that environmental campaigners speak only to their own fellow members (in their own epistemic community) and so they don’t reach a wider audience.

4. From “Leaders” to “Followers”

Traditionally “leaders” would stake out their point of view and invite potential followers to get behind them. For example Winston Churchill in the 1930s warned the British about the German menace and he was ignored. But then in 1939/1940 suddenly the British turned to him for leadership and he became Prime Minister in May 1940.

Now we have “followers” – leaders wait to see where the crowd is running and then run in front of the crowd and claim that they have always had that point of view. They will often replay back to the crowd the fears of that crowd. As the crowd changes its mind, so the “leaders” will change theirs.

A standard example of this process is the “war on terror”. The risk of being killed by terrorists in western countries has been greatly exaggerated (the average American stands a far higher chance of being killed through food poisoning). But thanks to the saturation media coverage, there is a perception among the public that there is a high risk of dying in a terrorist attack and so the politicians heed that fear by replaying the fears back to the voters and have introduced overly elaborate security measures.

The Washington DC-based German journalist Gabor Steingart has even warned that the “war on terror” is a diversion from the real threats to the US. “…our fears have been spun out of proportion. The Taliban consists of military dwarves and political pygmies. A country like Iran, with the gross domestic product the size of Connecticut’s and a military budget only as big as Sweden’s, doesn’t deserve the attention of the entire American public and its government”. The real issue is not so much terrorism as the comparative decline of the US economy and the rise of the Asian powers such as China .

If the leaders perceive that the environment (or any other issue) as not being of any real interest to the voters, then they won’t to give leadership on it.

5. Rise of “Info-Tainment”

A fifth change has reflected the growing comfort of media consumers. Life is a great deal easier now for most people in all western countries. The appalling poverty and violence that marred their lives has been reduced; even a black man can become of President of the United States (which would have been unthinkable, say, in 1970 only 40 years ago).
This progress has led to changes in the media. In the 1930s, 1940s and then the Cold War (1945-91) the news could kill you. The Great Depression of the 1930s; followed in the early 1940s by the possible invasion by German, Italian or Japanese dictators (depending on where one lived); and then after World War II the threat of nuclear war were all, so to speak, “bad news”.

Now the news is not nearly so “bad”. There has been, for example, a reduction in international conventional warfare. The most dangerous period to have lived in the past 110 years was 1900-50; since then the number of wars and the number of people killed in them have both declined. Terrorism, as noted above, is not a major cause of death in the western world. The “bad” news is in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere all outside the western world – and those areas hardly rate a mention (unless western tourists accidentally get caught up in the foreign violence).

Therefore, we have moved from serious media reporting and discussion of “big issues” and “bad news”, to entertainment items such “lifestyle”, sport and cooking food. The news is a mixture of light information and entertainment: “info-tainment”.

In summary, environmental NGOs began their campaigns in the late 1960s/ early 1970s at a time when western media consumers were also hearing other “bad” news. It all seemed of one piece – the possible “end of the world” by either nuclear weapons or environmental destruction.

Now there is far less appetite for “bad” news. This is one of the reasons for the popularity of the scepticism about climate change – the warnings seem now so distant and so abstract compared with the earlier risks of war. The planet evaded a nuclear World War III and so many people feel assured that the environmental warnings are equally misplaced.

I think that optimism may be misplaced and that the planet is facing grave resource shortages etc. But it means that environmental messages need to be refashioned to be effective.

6. From “Head” to “Heart”

To conclude, environmental NGOs (and all other NGOs) are now operating in a new media and political context. Here is a final comment on lobbying.

Traditionally, NGOs have gone for the “head”: trying to meet ministers to convey their point of view etc. This was a “Buchanesque” world. John Buchan (1875-1940) was a popular Scottish novelist (eg “The 39 Steps”) and then Governor-General of Canada. His many novels depicted a world where the “good guys” (and usually they were wealthy, well educated white men) were well-connected, members of the right London clubs, knew the right people and could muster resources that the average person could not – in order to defeat the “bad guys” (such as German spies).

NGOs lived with a “Buchanesque” paradigm. If they could only meet the right ministers and present them with logical arguments then they hoped to change policy. If the polite approach didn’t work, they could try to get the attention of the politicians with demonstrations.

I suggest NGOs need to move from the “head” to the “heart”. In other words, who actually makes policy? It is not the ministers at the top because they often now don’t really understand what is going on. Life is now so complicated. The skills of politicians are in winning elections and not getting a detailed grasp of the details of policies.

A good example of this process is the way in which “new right economic rationalist economics”/ “free market economics” replaced the traditional Keynesian approach to national government economic policy. The revolution began with conservative leaders in the US (Ronald Reagan) and the UK (Margaret Thatcher) and Labor leaders in Australia (Bob Hawke and Paul Keating) and New Zealand (David Lange and Roger Douglas). The party labels made little difference – they were all reading from similar scripts.

Who wrote those scripts? The “technostructure” - in John Kenneth Galbraith’s phrase (The New Industrial State, 19867) – did the work. The politicians simply did the talking.

Martin Feil, a former senior Australian bureaucrat, has recounted his experiences: “I have never been to a meeting with ministers where advisers and public servants were not present; often the minister’s only contribution has been to say “Hello” and “Goodbye”. I appreciate that captains of industry have private audiences with political decision-makers, but I wonder about the efficacy of such meetings. The billionaire or CEO often isn’t across the detail of what he wants to know or ask for, and the minister doesn’t necessarily know what he is talking about and may have difficulty relaying the substance and purpose of the meeting to his advisers” .

The implication here I suggest is that NGOs need to spend more time with the “script writers” working within the “heart” of the bureaucracy, such as serving on government.

There will still be a need for some NGOs to have an “impolite” approach (such as with demonstrations) because they draw the debate’s options far more out to one end (and reduce the risk of epistemic thinking). Other NGOs can present the ‘heart” with more “moderate” options and so gradually shift government policy.

Will it work if the world is facing a looming environmental catastrophe? Do we have enough time? British writer HG Wells is reputed to have said that life is a race between education and disaster. A century later that is still the case. We just need to find new ways of doing the “educating”.

# # #

About the author

Keith Suter is a futurist and media personality in the areas of social policy and foreign affairs. His first doctorate was in the international law of guerrilla warfare and his second in the economic and social consequences of the arms race. He is a member of the Club of Rome, President of the United Nations Association (NSW) and President of the Society for International Development (Sydney Chapter). He lives in Sydney Australia and can be via webeditor@keithsuter.com. .

--> Read on:

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

At Any Cost? The hidden costs of charging for public transport

Today's piece by Alex Berthelsen of Planka.nu, Sweden's largest public transport NGO, is part of World Streets wide-open international brainstorming series on "free public transport". The most recent article in this series appeared here last week under the title " Why Free Public Transport is a bad idea", inviting our readers to share their critical thoughts on this important, contentious but ultimately quite subtile subject. The flood gates immediately opened and within days we heard a variety of responses, negative and positive, from thirty readers logging in from more than a dozen different countries. You can access their comments and all the articles in this series via http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/category/free-public-transport/. And as always your critical comments and suggestions are welcome.


At Any Cost? The hidden costs of charging for public transport

There are a lot of obvious advantages that free public transport has to offer. But one that is often overlooked is the savings that can be made by not having to sell, validate and check tickets. Many public transport operators does not know what it costs them to uphold their fare-system, and some of them does not even admit that it is a cost. “It’s such a small amount of money that it’s not even worth counting,” is a reply you might get if asking a public transport operator about their costs associated with having fares.

In Stockholm, Sweden, this was the question asked, and the public transport operator, SL, gave the standard reply, so the organisation I work with, Planka.nu (Sweden's biggest public transport NGO), started to count and measure as many things as we could come up with that were associated with having fares in the public transport. The result was quite shocking, even for such free public transport advocates as us.

It is important to remember that the costs of having a fare-system are more than just the direct expenses such as tickets, vending machines, personnel, and barriers. Things such as queues, unsatisfied customers and violence are also costs directly associated with having fares, even though they are harder to measure in economic terms. Below I will go through a few of the biggest costs of the ticket system in the Stockholm public transport system, to give you a clue to what we could save by making the public transport free at the point of entry.

The Barriers

The barriers in the public transport system in Stockholm takes up well over 2700 square meters of valuable station space, space that could be exploited commercially or used for such nice things as bigger resting spaces for the workers or for putting up “cultural billboards”. Besides this the barriers costs about 2 million € per year in maintenance and 5 million € per year in reinvestment.

The barriers, and the mandatory showing of tickets to the bus driver creates unnecessary queues, bottlenecks and are an endless source of irritation for both the commuters and the workers in the public transport. According to the public transport operator in Stockholm, the queues are “not even worth measuring”, but we did it anyways. On bus line 4 which runs through central Stockholm the time wasted on checking tickets adds up to 35 (yes, thirty-five) percent of the total time the bus is operated. On the Stockholm Central station, the productivity loss of people queuing amounts to more than 3 million € per year, imagine how much money the loss would be if measured across the whole system and not just on one station!

The Workforce

By using the existing workforce, but giving them tasks that are meaningful for both them as well as the commuters we could switch personnel from pointless tasks such as guarding barriers and checking tickets into meaningful jobs such as helping commuters with information, or driving buses and trains. The total amount of money we could spend on people doing good instead of pointless things would be 40 million € per year, this would be a direct gain for the public transport and these 40 million € should be counted as an expenditure solely associated with the fare-system.

By making the public transport free we are also effectively getting rid of a lot of situations where violence occur. According to the public transport union in Stockholm, a majority of all reported threats and incidents of violence directed at workers are connected to the fare system, and according to the public transport ombudsman, almost all threats and incidents of violence directed at passengers are exercised by the personnel involved in selling and checking ticket. The value of reducing violence between passengers and personnel might be a bit hard to measure in economic terms, because it is priceless!

The Math

In this article I have shown that over 45 million € per year is wasted on the fare-system in the public transport in Stockholm, and this is not counting negative externalities such as queues, more people driving cars, unsatisfied costumers, violence, etc. 45 million € is around 10 percent of the total income from selling tickets in Stockholm, but that is obviously "not even worth counting" according to the public transport operator. Talk about disrespect for how they use the commuters hard-earned money!

Imagine a company or NGO that did not know their income and expenditures! This is, unfortunately, quite common in the glorious world of public transport. Instead of maximizing the public good that the public transport should be, our public transport operators are busy with finding new and innovative ways of trying to maximise their income by selling more and more expensive tickets to people who are just doing the right thing and choosing an exemplary means of transportation.

There are some good examples though, where public transport operators have actually studied the costs of selling tickets. One of those is Island Transit on the Whidbey and Camano islands in Washington. Before they opened their systems they did the math and realized that the costs of selling tickets would be approximately the same as the income from selling tickets. So they decided to make their system fare-free instead.

When faced with the arguments for free public transport, many people respond by saying that it should not be free, but that it should be much cheaper. The problem with that argument is that if you make the public transport cheaper, an even larger share of the income from tickets will go directly to upholding the fare-system. This problem creates a situation where you either have expensive tickets, fewer users and a smaller share of the income going to upholding the fare-system, or cheap tickets, more users and a larger share of the income lost on selling tickets.

Against this I can only put the proposal of making the public transport free, something that would both mean more riders filling up the current empty seats as well as no money wasted on the fare-system -- in the words of Irwin Kellner, chief economist for MarketWatch (a part of the Wall Street Journal), free public transport would be “a win-win solution, if I ever saw one.”

# # #

About the author:

Alexander Berthelsen is editor of Carbusters Magazine. He's a Swede currently living in Prague, Czech Republic where he's doing a one-year internship at World Carfree Network. Back in Sweden he's active in Planka.nu for whom he, amongst other things, wrote a report in Swedish on "At Any Cost?" last year. (This article is based on the Swedish report "Till varje pris?" ("At any cost?") released in March 2009. http://planka.nu/vad-tycker-vi/rapporter/till-varje-pris.). He can be reached via alexander.berthelsen@gmail.com or http://twitter.com/alexberthelsen.

Planka.nu is Sweden's largest public transport NGO, they started up in 2001 as free public transport activists but has since expanded their work into many different areas of urban politics. They just released their second English report "The Traffic Hierarchy". URL: http://planka.nu Email: sthlm@planka.nu

--> Read on:

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

The Guardian comes to visit Paris and Vélib'

In the context of the start-up of London's long-awaited public bicycle project next week, the British daily, The Guardian, sent reporter Leo Hickman to meet with the London start-up team, and then arranged for him to spend  a day with us in Paris asking about and riding the Vélib'. It just so happened that his visit corresponded with the third anniversary of Vélib', so you editor was pleased to have this chance to compare notes. You have here the main text of his article in today's Guardian, but for the full story and photographs, let us point you to the original here

London and Paris: a tale of two bike-hire schemes


- By Leo Hickman, The Guardian,



London's much-vaunted bike-hire scheme launches next week. Parisians love their Vélib' scheme – but will Londoners take to their new bikes so fondly?

London, Tuesday 20 July 2010

It's not the best of starts. I've only been in the saddle of this new bicycle – the centrepiece of London's cycle hire system, set to launch on 30 July – for two minutes and I'm already being flagged down by a policeman. What have I done wrong, I wonder nervously. Did I cut across someone when changing lanes on the approach to Westminster Bridge? Should I be wearing a helmet? It's been three decades since I passed my cycling proficiency test, and there's been very little serious cycling in between.

The policeman points to the spot on the curb when he wants me to park up. "What have I done, officer?"

"Oh, nothing," he says. "I just wanted to ask what the bike was like to ride. Do you think it will be popular?" Squeezing the brakes and ringing the bell, he's like a wide-eyed boy in a bike shop. I offer him a go. "I can't," he says. "I'm on duty."

It strikes me, during this rather surreal exchange, that at least the bike isn't suited to being a getaway vehicle. It weighs more than 20kg, and has three gears: Sloth, Tortoise and Ageing Elephant. It's designed for leisurely ambling rather than APD (aggressive pursuit of destination), which is clearly the default setting of every other cyclist on the road today. The looks of disdain and irritation are palpable as they continually whizz past me.

After Paris, this will be the world's second-largest urban cycle hire system. The scheme, vigorously promoted by London's mayor Boris Johnson, will eventually see 6,000 bikes parked at 400 "docking stations" spread every 300 metres or so across central London (although the latest in a string of delays means only pre-registered "members" will be able to take out the bikes from a week on Friday, with the wider public only getting their hands on the bikes at the end of next month). After paying a daily access fee of £1, and providing details of a credit card for the deposit, the first 30 minutes of bike use will be free, although the price escalates rapidly as the clock ticks on (£1 for an hour, £6 for two hours, £35 for six hours).

My first impressions of the bike, riding it from Victoria to Borough and back along the South Bank, are good. Yes, it is heavy – you're never going to overtake Lance Armstrong on this thing – but it needs to be built to last, and be thief- and vandal-proof, a problem that has blighted other systems around the world (particularly Paris). It is purposely not designed for long rides: the pricing structure encourages sub-30-minute journeys and, given the limited geographical spread of the distinctive blue docking stations, it is not yet a bike aimed at commuters. Rather, it is there to replace a short taxi ride, or a two- or three-stop tube journey.

The bike has an adjustable padded seat, smooth handling, a guard to protect your clothing from the oily chain, a bell and dynamo lights. But there are problems. The lack of mirrors is a minor grumble, but understandable given how easily they might snap off (tip: carry your own clip-on mirrors). A far bigger inconvenience is the lack of a basket or a security chain, both of which come as standard on the Vélib' in Paris. Instead, the London bike has what can only be described as a magazine rack. You could carry a Sunday newspaper in it, but not much else. And rather than chain it to a lamppost when you pop into the shop to buy said paper, you will have to find a docking station or risk losing the £300 deposit should it be stolen.

My other criticism is that you've got "Barclays" plastered all over the bike. Sure, London wouldn't have this new bike without the rumoured £25m that Barclays has paid to sponsor the system for the next five years, but the prominence of the branding earns me a heckle or two as I pass the peace protestors camped out at Westminster Square.

And then there is the name. Parisians have fallen in love with the Vélib' – a portmanteau of velo (bicycle) and liberté (freedom). Londoners are, one feels, less likely to fall for the Barclays Cycle Hire, as the bike is officially known. Freecycle is already taken, but this bike urgently needs an affectionate moniker (The London Wheel? The Big Ben? The Bumbling Boris?) if Londoners are to develop the same levels of affection.

Another key to the scheme's success, says Tom Bogdanovich, campaigns manager at the London Cycling Campaign, will be avoiding the "Montmartre effect", whereby users arrive at popular destinations only to find empty docking stations. (In Paris, the steep hill at Montmartre means users invariably only hire the Vélib' to ride down the slope rather than up, leading to a noted shortage of bikes at the top of the hill.)

"London has the great benefit from learning from the experiences in Paris and Barcelona," Bogdanovich says. "Getting the distribution right is key: it's crucial that people have easy, immediate access. As the system moves on, they must respond to patterns of use and identify where the highest demand is. It would make sense, for example, to think about expanding it to Canary Wharf and the Olympic zone."

Bogdanovich says an estimated 250,000 people cycle in London every day, and that one in three people are "interested" in cycling. "But that's still way behind cities such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen. The system should take advantage of the fact that London is a cluster of villages. Hackney, for example, has very high cycling rates – 10% of all journeys. Also, the average bike journey in London now is 3.5km, yet this system is largely aimed at replacing short tube journeys in central London. Over time, the system will need to serve both demands."

Now on to Paris and Vélib'.

Four hours after handing my trial bike back to a Transport for London official, and one Eurostar trip later, I am standing outside a Paris apartment adjacent to the exquisite Jardin du Luxembourg on the Left Bank. The apartment belongs to Eric Britton, an American who has lived in the French capital since the late 1960s and who now acts as an international consultant and commentator on sustainable urban transport systems. He's a huge fan of the Vélib', which launched to much fanfare and enthusiasm three years ago this month. He immediately probes me for first impressions of the London bike.

"Yes, it is a big error not to include a lock-up and a basket," he agrees, as we walk to his nearest docking station. "Around 90% of Parisians use the basket on their Vélib'. Ladies' purses, backpacks, shopping bags – they all go in there. I also think the London scheme is too small. Paris, which is a smaller city, launched with almost twice the number of bikes and stations."

Still, Britton is broadly optimistic that London's bikeshare scheme will be a success: "The real genius of the systems in both London and Paris is that the first 30 minutes are free. It needs to be 100% ready on day one, though. All the problems need to be ironed out, otherwise people will conclude it's not worth the effort.

"Over time, you will see the bikes starting to occupy the terrain. Slowly, they will increase and gain more of the roadspace. Then the demand for more bike lanes will increase. We've seen this in Paris. Such a modal shift takes a little time, but it is happening here."

Britton shows me how easy it is to undock a Vélib'. As an annual subscriber, he has a swipe card which gives him instant access. I have to use my bank card to gain access via the electronic terminal, though, which delays things for a couple of minutes.

Britton shows me how to quickly scan for the best available bikes: brakes, tyre pressure, seat, gears, a spin of the back wheel – a habit he says is now instinctive for most Vélib' users. It has also become etiquette, should you have a faulty bike, to lower the seat and turn it to face backwards to indicate to other users not to use it. (Each docking point also has a "spanner" push button to mark the bike down as needing a repair.)

The Vélib' is virtually the same bike as the London one, except for the sizeable basket and chain lock. But whereas I had a gleaming new model to try out in London, most of the Vélib's I see in Paris are displaying signs of heavy use. I pick a bike with a handle grip missing. Graeme the photographer discovers, in the middle of a fast-flowing intersection as we head towards the Eiffel tower, that his chain has a tendency to slip at the most inopportune moments.

Nevertheless, it is immediately apparent what differentiates Paris and London in terms of cycling experience. Paris's wide boulevards and avenues, with their separate side lanes now converted into cycle lanes, mean cyclists can regularly escape the near-constant close contact with heavy traffic that London's cyclists must tolerate. Despite the launch of London's first cycle "superhighways" for commuters yesterday, it is hard to see how other city's urban topography can ever be drastically altered to counter this.

But Britton's most surprising observation is that the Vélib' hasn't done much to reduce road traffic in Paris. Rather than get people out of cars – it is reckoned to have substituted only about 10% of car trips in central Paris – it has done a far better job of getting people off public transport. As many as half of all Vélib' trips are estimated to have replaced Metro or bus journeys.

Before I depart Paris, I meet up with Albert Asséraf, a strategist at JCDecaux – the advertising corporation that runs the Vélib' in return for a 10-year exclusive contract to use the city's 1,500-odd digital display hoardings. I ask what lessons London can learn from the Paris system, particularly after JCDecaux director general Rémi Pheulpin's comments last year that the Paris scheme was not commercially viable because of the extent of the theft and vandalism.

"Since we launched in 2007, we have expanded to 1,750 stations across the city and neighbouring suburbs and now have a maximum of 24,000 bikes in operation at any one time," he says. "To date, we've had 9,000 bikes stolen and 9,000 bikes vandalised. Most thefts are caused by day users because they are not used to how the docking systems works and they leave the bike accidentally unsecured. We have worked hard to communicate the message that these bikes are 'ours' – they belong to all of Paris, and it is a system we should be proud of. London should do the same."

Asséraf says the average journey on a Vélib' lasts 21 minutes and covers 2km, but that to counter the aforementioned Montmartre effect, users are now rewarded for returning their bikes to unpopular docking stations on hills (bikes are also redistributed around the city in trucks).

"We now give users 15 minutes' free credit if they return a bike to a so-called 'altitude' station. It's little lessons like this that London will need to learn. And London should make sure the stations are well stocked, even during the night. About 15% of all Vélib' journeys occur after the Metro shuts down and people want to get home without paying for expensive taxis. The Vélib' has become part of our lives – Parisians just can't imagine Paris without the Vélib' now."

# # #

About the author:

Leo Hickman is a features journalist and editor at the Guardian. He is not a daily cycling enthusiast but did well in coping with Paris traffic on his first game try here.  Leo is the author of "The Final Call", "A Good Life: The Guide to Ethical Living, and "Life Stripped Bare: My Year Trying to Live Ethically", all available from The Guardian. You can consult his website at http://leohickman.wordpress.com/

World Streets on Fair Use here: http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/the-journal/fair-use/

--> Read on:

Friday, July 16, 2010

Honk! City of the Future? (Have a stupid weekend)

We here at World Streets always have problems with "cities of the future" visions, not so much because they are almost always consistently wacky in some totally wierd unreal-world way, but because they tend to project things so far into the distant, almost always thoroughly magical future, that they get us off the hook for doing anything about it TODAY. So sit back and relax, dear citizens and voters, and let the benevolent forces of the economy and technology solve the problem for you. Hmm.

Again this background, and for your weekend viewing pleasure, we are pleased to share with you this excellent drawing of a future city which has been kindly sent along today by Mike Co of the Clean Air Initiative for our contemplation (see his note http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/node/4763).




And since the underlying text is a bit difficult to read, here is what the authors had to say back in 1925 about their future cities, only 25 years out:

How you may live and travel in the city of 1950.
"Future city streets, says Mr. Corbett, will be in four levels: The top level for pedestrians; the next lower level for slow motor traffic; the next for fast motor traffic, and the lowest for electric trains. Great blocks of terraced skyscrapers half a mile high will house offices, schools, homes, and playgrounds in successive levels, while the roofs will be airplane landing fields, according to the architect's plan."

Haw haw. Well perhaps not. When was the last time you checked out Dubai?

And since bad ideas die hard, let's have a look at the latest issue of that same journal (now somehow appropriately relabeled "Popscicom"), where this time they offer up their vision of "The plan for tomorrow's mega city, which they currently target 2030.


Here, we the innocent readers are told, "We present the most visionary ideas by scientists, engineers and designers to make the cities of the future what they were meant to be all along: sustainable". To which they add in their transportation vision "an eco-savvy blueprint that points the way to fresh air, clean water, and traffic that never jams".

You can check it out at http://www.popsci.com/futurecity/home2.html, where you will see that their future city's transportation system keys on the marvels of MIT's PodCar, driverless buses, energy highways ("Save energy by driving faster" – nice!). and – whoopee – PRT in the form of "Maglev Skytrains". ("Le plus ça change, le plus c'est la même chose", translating roughly to "will they never learn?"

After a summer weekend of marvel, we can get back to the serous work at hand on Monday morning.

Eric Britton, Editor

PS. And should you be coming to Paris in the next month, there is an exhibit in the Centre Pompidou entitled "Dreamlands" which in my view is no less unpleasant than either of the above but which may be worth a visit nonetheless. The basic idea is set out in these words from the exhibit program which you can view at
http://www.centrepompidou.fr/Pompidou/Manifs.nsf/AllExpositions/0E4639A34A4B08C5C12576B8003A5F37?OpenDocument&sessionM=2.1.1&L=2&form=Actualite

"The dreamlands of the leisure society have shaped the imagination, nourishing both utopian dreams and artistic productions. But they have also become realities : the pastiche, the copy, the artificial and the fictive have become facts of the environment in which real life is led, and they serve as models for understanding and planning the urban fabric and its social life, blurring the boundaries between imagination and reality."

Scary stuff! Come visit. Ride a Velib. Real 21st century century technology that works.


--> Read on: