After many decades of a single dominant city-shaping transportation pattern (i.e., Pedal Power Doc on Sharing: Quick interview with Eric Britton 
old mobility) -- there is considerable evidence accumulating that we have already entered into a world of new mobility practices that are changing the transportation landscape in many ways. It has to do with sharing, as opposed to outright ownership. An important pattern that is thus far escaping notice at the top.
Sharing in the 21st century. Will it shape our cities?
"On the whole, you find wealth more in use than in ownership."
- Aristotle. ca. 350 BC
After many decades of a single dominant city-shaping transportation pattern - i.e., for those who could afford it: owning and driving our own cars, trucks, motorcycles and bicycles, getting into taxis by ourselves, riding in streets that are designed for cars and not much else (i.e., old mobility) -- there is considerable evidence accumulating that we have already entered into a world of new mobility practices that are changing the transportation landscape in many ways. It has to do with sharing, as opposed to outright ownership. But strange to say, this trend seems to have escaped the attention of the policymakers in many of the places and institutions directly concerned.
However transport sharing is an important 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 often wealthiest and most livable) cities -- not just a watered down or second-rate transport option for the poor. With this in view, we are setting out to examine not just the qualities (and limitations) of individual shared mobility modes, but also to put this in the broader context of why people share. And why they do not. And in the process to stretch our minds to consider what is needed to move toward a new environment in which people often share rather than necessarily only doing things on their own when it comes to moving around in our cities worldwide.
Sixteen sharing options you may wish to give some thought to:1. Bikesharing
For more:
2. Carsharing (formal and informal)
3. Fleetsharing
4. Ridesharing (carpools, van pools, hitchhiking, slugging - organized and informal).
5. School share (Walking school bus, walk/bike to school)
6. Taxi sharing
7. Shared Parking
8. Truck/van sharing (combined delivery, other)
9. Streetsharing (example: BRT streets shared between buses, cyclists, taxis, emergency vehicles)
10. Activity sharing (streets used by others for other (non-transport) reasons as well.)
11. Public space sharing
12. Workplace sharing (neighborhood telework centers; virtual offices; co-workplace; hoteling)
13. Sharing SVS (small vehicle systems: DRT, shuttles, community buses, etc.)
14. Time sharing
15. Successful integration of public transport within a shared transport city (Including bus and rail)
16. Knowledge-sharing (including via World Streets)
1. Lyon Conference: If you want to learn more about this, consider going to Lyon France for their conference on transport sharing later this month (30 November, in French) - http://newmobilityagenda.blogspot.com/2009/11/transportation-sharing-and-sustainable.html
And while you are there, you can do worse to spend some time to see how they are progressing on the sharing front themselves: bikesharing and carsharing are both in place and doing well. And if you keep your eyes open you will see more.
2. Kaohsiung Conference: Or next September think about coming to Kaohsiung Taiwan for their first International Conference on Sharing Transport - see www.kaohsiung.newmobility.org . Again, a city that is already into bike sharing and looking hard at taxi sharing, among others.
3. You: And tell the world about your events, papers, media, accomplishments, problems and your ideas.
4. Us: And stay tuned to World Streets. We do sharing.
5. And now a few words from our sponsor. (30 seconds)
from Cogent Benger on Vimeo.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Sixteen practical things you can start to do today to combat climate change, get around in style & meet some nice people
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
it really depends. I think it would depend on a region and the mode split percentages. In the U.S., probably only Manhattan has a majority of households that don't own cars. So you see the impact of carsharing programs in places like DC or Arlington County, where the existence of carsharing programs in the context of a web of decent quality transit encourages more households to not own a car or to give up at least one additional car. (It is typical for medium and high income U.S. households to have at least two cars.)
ReplyDeleteDisclosure: my household is a Zipcar member. We don't own a car. We do rent cars or use Zipcar on occasion, probably 2-3 times/month on average. Zipcar mostly for big purchases that can't easily be transported via transit or to cover a lot of ground in a short period of time.
However, promoting carsharing in a place like Manhattan could encourage driving at the expense of transit use.
Bikesharing. Hmm, again, it depends on the mode split. In the U.S., it's tricky. We have little overall use of bicycles as basic transportation, although some cities do ok. I think that bikesharing programs have the opportunity to be positioned as a lowcost way for people to refamiliarize themselves with biking as a transportation option. Probably, people who shift to bicycling as their primary transportation mode will buy their own bicycle because it is more flexible than riding through bikesharing systems. (Unless you live in the core of the city, where sharing stations criss cross the central business district and adjoining neighborhoods.)
bikesharing is being positioned as about the "last mile" from the end of the transit trip to the final destination. I don't know how much that matters. Most places with good density and good transit likely the people walk to their final destination. Needing your destination to be proximate with a locking station makes ubiquity of bikesharing stations unlikely. And frankly, the way it works in the U.S., most people who work in activity centers aren't a part of the normal information and media systems that cover those places, so they don't learn about the existence of programs such as bikesharing as a matter of course. (Which is why I keep suggesting using transit stations as a primary information dissemination point on transit and other mobility systems, particularly bicycling.)
Personally, I have no interest in joining a bikesharing program. I own a bike, and ride it on most trips (unless it is raining or icy) of up to 8-10 miles. I'd be happy to use it on vacation though.
We need more information on trip behavior of others before we can say for sure.
In any case, I am working in a suburban county in the Baltimore region where there are a couple activity centers, including universities and health centers, where a limited system of bikesharing could work. (I am intrigued by the Zots program at U California Irvine.) If we could get a couple of these activity centers using the same system, it might then be possible to use the same system to provide bikesharing opportunities at certain trailheads for off-road recreational bicycling on trails, not unlike what the Tulsa Townies program does.
We'll see.
Richard Layman, Washington DC
I'm concerned that it is not clear in our discussion that people disagree that carshare, bikeshare and rideshare are good things.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, I'm concerned that these modes of transport can be very effective whitewash, making it look like progress is made, while actually, deaths and GHG emissions can all grow with these measures growing. Jeevon's Paradox -- efficiency can provoke greater use -- is one explanation for why.
with good wishes,
Aaron Thomas aaronkmthomas(At)gmail(dot)com
> I'm concerned that it is not clear in our discussion that people disagree that carshare, bikeshare and rideshare are good things.<
ReplyDeleteI agree with Richard Layman that things are more complicated than the above statement suggests.
I am with Eric on his emphasis on sharing. I am myself preparing a presentation to the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome on the importance of sharing, in general, for resource consumption, not just in transportation. I have always described sharing as minkind's oldest technology.
In transportation, it not only saves energy and mineral resources, but land, urbanites' most treasured resource. A car that serves many people sequentially can save huge amounts of land for parking at the home end, and at the destination end. Or one that is used by 2-8 tens times a week can also save in several ways.
These forms of sharing, though, are not yet at their most efficient potential. A common booking system for taxis, ridesharing, carsharing, and transit can track individual seats in time and space. We must beware of efforts to protect any of these industries from this further, important step ahead.
Bikesharing is also a big question mark, as it hasn't been studied enough yet to learn what its users' deem their best alternatives to be. Would they be walking otherwise, or riding an owned bike, or driving, or taking a taxi, or using transit?
That is why we need to keep the Green Transportation Hierarchy (GTH) in mind: 1) walking, 2) cycling, 3) transit, and 4) automobile. And the sharing variations should be slotted just above each: 1) walking, 2) shared-cycle, 3) owned bicycle, 4) transit, 5) carsharing/taxi/ridesharing/car-rental, and 6) automobile. The test should always be: does a particular initiative cause an overall upward shift? If bikesharing most reduces walking, well, it is a failure, but if it replaces owned bicycles, then it is a _slight_ improvement.
What is hard is to get the cycling and transit industries to accept that they are not at the top rung, and that if the GTH is adhered to, they could lose as many users to modes above them as gain users from the modes below.
Also, transit need reforming too, as it focuses too much on users with their own cars, by providing a rush-hour only service, at great cost, while charging too little for it (flat fares, unlimited passes). The industry actually calls these people "transit choice" while referring to the non-car-owner as "transit captive." Rather, transit should focus on a better all-day service that makes car-ownership redundant. They should also support forcing the car owner to pay their full cost to taxpayers for their use; in that way, transit can get away charging a fair cost for use, without subsidies.
Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa Canada
@ottawalk
Very interesting thoughts Richard and Chris (and Aaron).
ReplyDeleteBeing in Montreal, I have quite extensive experience with the Bixi bikeshare program and can offer my own personal impressions of it's place in the transportation mix. I own two bicycles myself and thought (and still think) that the pricing model for Bixi was too expensive for Montreal. I read somewhere that a monthly or annual subscription includes a 'bixi-key' which is very convenient to loan to friends. I was expecting a visitor so I decided to make the leap and I signed up for one full year at $76 (which did not seem like that bad of a deal).
Once I got my Bixi key, the first thing that I did was try it out. I am fortunate that I live in an inner-ring area that is well-served by the system. There is a station around the corner from where I live, and I rarely need to walk more than two-four blocks to find a station anywhere in the areas where I frequent. Wow - All of a sudden my 'range of options' was just so much larger! Instead of going to one of my local neighborhood stores, I could now go a few extra blocks and go to a more specialized place if I wanted to.
For a while I really started going crazy - using Bixi for what would have only been ten minute walks: feta cheese from this place, grapefruits from that one, spices from yet another.... I still use my bicycle to get to work, but Bixi has replaced (or rather 'augmented') my walking trips around the neighbourhood. I probably actually make a larger number of trips now, since it is easier to go out and get back home in a given amount of time.
I also find it convenient to get to the metro station on the days when the weather is bad and I do not want to bring my bike.
On balance, I would say that Bixi has 'augmented' my mobility and provides me with access to a larger range of options. I still walk and still use my own bicycle(s), but I have an additional option now which is very comfortable and convenient.
Cheers,
Zvi
2009/11/13 Chris Bradshaw
> I'm concerned that it is not clear in our discussion that people disagree
> that carshare, bikeshare and rideshare are good things.
...
> Bikesharing is also a big question mark, as it hasn't been studied enough
> yet to learn what its users' deem their best alternatives to be. Would they
> be walking otherwise, or riding an owned bike, or driving, or taking a taxi,
> or using transit?
Zvi.
ReplyDeleteYou have put your finger on it.
That is just about precisely the way that many of us here in Paris, and the other twenty-plus PBS cities that I have visited over the last couple of years, have reacted to having a handy public bike just around the corner.
Someone, me maybe, has called them the Seven League Boots of Urban Mobility.
But, and here the catch, it's just about impossible to know how they work until you put them on.
Eric Britton
As for carshare, I think this will only reduce transport's carbon footprint
ReplyDeletesignificantly as part of an overall strategy which restricts car ownership, e.g.
by charging full cost for residential parking, certainly as least as much per
hour as is charged for visitor parking.
The Jevons Paradox again helps us anticipate a problem here.
Carshare would make higher charges for parking (also road tolls, gas taxes, etc.) less effective for restricting actual use -- which is the major problem for GHG emissions and deaths/injuries (not ownership). Because it would be carshare and "costs-share" too.
Sharing the ownership (and costs) of a negative technology cannot really solve the problem, can it?
Aaron Thomas
ZVI,
ReplyDeleteYou raise an interesting point. You deem that Bixi bikes easier to access than your own, mainly, I suspect, because the self-owned bike requires finding/using secure parking at both ends of each trip.
That extra effort is worthwhile only for longer commuting trips, but shorter shopping/errand trips tip the balance for the shared-bike choice.
This overhead of the 'trip ends' affects trip types and modes. A car-owner usually won't choose driving unless the trip is long enough to cover the time cost of getting out of and into a parking spot on both ends of the trip. Taking the bus isn't practical for short trips, thanks to both walking and waiting times. In both these cases, walking is part of the 'end's' overhead, especially since it often doesn't involve moving towards one's destination.
All this is to point out that shorter trips favour the kinder, gentler (and more informal) modes that don't have much 'overhead' at the beginning or end of each trip, but just move you along a bit slowly and convivially.
Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa Canada
@Ottawalk