From edelman at greenidea.info Sun Jun 3 09:51:17 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:51:17 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Great but disturbing video about planned bridge over Elbe in Dresden Message-ID: <46621085.5080608@greenidea.info> Hi, I wanted to share this.... it is great short anti-road building piece which could inspire your own communication activities.... in case you don't know it is about a planned highway bridge over the Elbe river in Dresden. There are different ways to download the video... and you can see at the top left there is a link to English-language pages about the situation. - T -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From sujit at vsnl.com Sun Jun 3 16:43:06 2007 From: sujit at vsnl.com (Sujit Patwardhan) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 13:13:06 +0530 Subject: [sustran] Re: Great but disturbing video about planned bridge over Elbe inDresden In-Reply-To: <46621085.5080608@greenidea.info> References: <46621085.5080608@greenidea.info> Message-ID: <4cfd20aa0706030043v433d5c16ta5e1056a4fa60fdb@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Tod, Truly shocking and effective... -- Sujit On 6/3/07, Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory wrote: > > Hi, > > I wanted to share this.... it is great short anti-road building piece > which could inspire your own communication activities.... in case you > don't know it is about a planned highway bridge over the Elbe river in > Dresden. > > > > There are different ways to download the video... and you can see at the > top left there is a link to English-language pages about the situation. > > - T > > > -- > -------------------------------------------- > > Todd Edelman > Director > Green Idea Factory > > Korunn? 72 > CZ-10100 Praha 10 > Czech Republic > > ++420 605 915 970 > ++420 222 517 832 > Skype: toddedelman > > edelman@greenidea.info > > Green Idea Factory, > a member of World Carfree Network > www.worldcarfree.net > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via > YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to > join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The > yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the > real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you > can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, > equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries > (the 'Global South'). > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Sujit Patwardhan sujit@vsnl.com sujitjp@gmail.com "Yamuna", ICS Colony, Ganeshkhind Road, Pune 411 007 India Tel: 25537955 ----------------------------------------------------- Hon. Secretary: Parisar www.parisar.org ------------------------------------------------------ Founder Member: PTTF (Pune Traffic & Transportation Forum) www.pttf.net ------------------------------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070603/4d0ee187/attachment.html From c_bradshaw at rogers.com Tue Jun 5 00:16:05 2007 From: c_bradshaw at rogers.com (Chris Bradshaw) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 11:16:05 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . . . References: Message-ID: <08b101c7a6c3$8b5d75a0$0202a8c0@acer56fb35423d> Eric, > Bikeability indicators - Quick introduction: Since I don't think we are leaders in this field, I think it would be useful to look at the 'bikeability' scales that have already been developed, both to get ideas and perhaps to see if we might wholly import. http://www.velomondial.net/ has a four-level system -- based more on municipal policy than on on-the-ground results -- for "bicycle friendliness": platinum/gold/silver/bronze. They also have an on-line "city characteristics questionnaire" that cities can fill in. They also discuss a concept called 'car-sparse areas.' www.bicyclinginfo.org/de is a site of the Washington DC-based National Center for Bicycling and Walking. It uses the term "bicyclability" and has an equal interest in walking (although the group started out as a cycling org.). http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/ is the site of the League of American Biocyclists (was League of Am. Wheelmen). It has an award program for qualifying Am. cities. I find bike parking missing from your list. How much? How do bylaws support it? > City size/density: Size is not as important as density, but to keep trips short (to bicycle distances, without the cyclist, as you point out, having to be an 'enthusiast'), land use is also a factor. Are neighbourhood retail sectors strong? And are such neighbourhoods 'complete'? (as in do they have a full set of destinations to support living on at least a daily-weekly scale? This implies a planning process that is pro-active, such at as property becomes available locally, first consideration is given to what local area _needs_ as to what land use should be chosen to locate there) Chris Bradshaw Ottawa From transport at peacechild.org Tue Jun 5 02:01:00 2007 From: transport at peacechild.org (Anna Kitteringham) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:01:00 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Seeking children worldwide to submit articles/stories/poems/pictures on Sustainable Transport Message-ID: <3dfe125b0706041001y5fff1f69q7e687354101f154@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I am running the Sustainable Transport Book project and I just wanted to thank everyone that has contacted me so far and to encourage other children and young people to tell the world their transport stories. We are creating a book for children written and edited entirely by children and young people. I would love for you to be a part of this world wide project and encourage others to think about environmentally friendly methods of transport. Please tell us how you get to school? How long does it take? Do you enjoy the journey? Do you face any challenges on the way? How does your trip affect the environment? If your town or city is doing something great to make transport more sustainable please let us know. Paint us a picture, write a story or article, take a photo and share your story with the world. All the information that you need is available at www.peacechild.org/transport, but if you have any questions please drop me an email at transport@peacechild.org. The closing date is 30th June 2007. Many thanks, Anna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070604/19bef40a/attachment.html From snmhermans at hotmail.com Mon Jun 4 21:10:15 2007 From: snmhermans at hotmail.com (Saskia) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:10:15 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . . . References: Message-ID: Hello Eric, Thank you for your inspiring mail! I would like to react on your bikeability indicators, as a dutch urban designer specialised on cycling and cycling infrastructure. 1.. City size and density: In the Netherlands we reckon that medium sized towns and cities ( 50.000 to 200.000 people) are more bikeable than big cities. In big cities the urban transport tends to get that well that it becomes a serious competitor for cycling (wich means less cyclists, which often leads to less infrastructure etc). In that respect I would give Paris a 3 to 4. The same holds good for density I guess, as soon as a city is dense enough public transport can flourish and people can "avoid" cycling. 2.. Cars: Nice indicator but what about bicycles?? In Holland as a whole we do have more bicycles (almost 20 Million) then people ( 17 Million), and about 7.2 Million cars. In terms of households in Holland we do have 77.3% with a car, but we do cycle a lot more than the average Parisien. 3.. Transit system coverage: If you mean public transport in Paris it certainly is a 5! But like I said, public transport is a competitor to cycling so should you give it a 5 in this context as adding to bikeability? 4.. Kms of cycle path, protected space: Important BUT let's not forget that every trip has a starting point and a destination. If there are no parking facilities they are of little use. The chain is as strong as the weakest part! So I would like to add Bicycle Parking facilities as an indicator, both at home and at destination points (at schools, stations, at work, shops etc). In Holland 45% of the people sometimes do not use their bike because they are afraid it will be stolen. 5.. Slow streets or zones: maybe to take together with the km of cycle paths? On the following six points I would say that you know Paris better then I do. They seem reasonable indicators to me 1.. % city area easily cyclable: 2.. Cyclable days /year: ca. 90% (personal estimate), ditto, between 4 and 5. 3.. Cycle clubs/voice: Strong/active, plugged in to policy. 3 close to 4 I would say, not least because of their role and performance in the Mobilien and Velib' projects) 4.. Vandalism/public facilities: Not too bad, with some clear exceptions in troubled areas. Let me go for 3+ for now, and we will know a lot more about it after a year of the Velib'. 5.. Driver skills: Gradually getting better as the density of cyclists increased, but still plenty room for improvement. At best 2-3. 6.. Police on bikes (and skates) - Yes, and a great feedback mechanism for the city. I'd say 3 going on 4. An other point to add might be cycle services. In the south of France where I live it is difficult to find a place where you can buy a decent bike, let alone have it repaired or get spare parts. This discourages people to invest in cycling here. You have to be part of an incrowd to be able to find the right places, if they exist at all. Just think of cycling as of car driving; without parking facilities or mecanics you would not use your car either. A last indicator to add might be Sexiness of cycling or Image if you like. Again, cars are a lot about image and status, so is clothing and your address or house. It is not so different for bicycles. In Holland we do have several ministers that do cycle to work, five generations of Royalty by bike. At the Eurotop in Amsterdam Wim Kok, then our Prime minister, gave away bikes to Tony Blair, Chirac, etc in Amsterdam. The picture went all over the world. The sales of bikes had been stagnating for a long time in the 70 and 80, but began to pick up when you finally could choose between more models, notable the all terrain bike, and between more colours then black, brown and blue. As long as cycling is seen as a pooor mans solution to travel, the great masses will not be attracted to it. You are all welcome to comment on my reaction, Saskia Hermans ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Britton (Commons) To: LotsLessCars@yahoogroups.com Cc: Sustran Resource Centre ; citycycles@newmobility.org Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:54 AM Subject: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . . Thanks Anzir, Roland, Dave, John, Carlos, Chris, Simon, Martin and you in case I forget, Let me see if I can quickly recall we are trying to do here, and put it before you in a form which may with more thought and several more exchanges lead to something useful. Bikeability indicators - Quick introduction: The idea is to see if we can hammer together a fast and dirty (but not too dirty) set of indicators giving a compact idea of "cyclability" in a given place: ease, safety, comfort. I think Stephen put it quite well when he reminded me: "Provided that the settlement is reasonably compact, so that most journeys are within the range of an ordinary person rather than a cycling enthusiast, by far the most important thing is to give cyclists a safe and agreeable environment." That is to say a place in which (a) you would want your family to cycle and (b) which also provides a good prospective environment for city or public bikes of the sort that has recently come into plan in the world of new mobility and whose potential transformation potential is something that I believe we are only now starting to scratch with the new 20,000 free bikes Paris Velib' project that is to open on 15 July. First-cut Paris indicators - example, for comment and correction: Now, here is how I am looking specifically at the situation here in Paris - based on my own, on-street observations and admittedly very subjective indicators. I might add that I received a number of very interesting suggestions for digging deeper, and indeed if this is possible in your city I hope you will give it a try. My concern is not to let the whole thing get too long or too complicated. Otherwise, as we say in the language we tend to speak around here, 'le mieux devient l'ennemi du bien". So modest does it! Here is how my first cut looks this morning for Paris: 1.. City size/density: 2.1 million people living in 105 sq. kms, with more than half a million more pouring in from the suburbs, and most often by public transit, every day: - i.e., we have a compact central city that is as such potentially well suited to cycling - if we were to put it on a quasi-arbitrary scale of 1-5, I would give it 5. 2.. Cars: ca. 0.5 per household - Nice. Maybe 4 out of 5 and working on it. (Availability of carsharing might be another good car indicator. After all if you share you are not likely to own and that makes you a prime candidate for other ways for getting around in the city. However in Paris we are still in early days. But fast developing.) 3.. Transit system coverage: Excellent/dense. (Sure this is subjective, but I an neither selling nor abusing the city, so let's try for 5 in this important bikeability context) 4.. Kms of cycle path, protected space: 370 (planned to 500 kms). I'd give it something between 3 and 5. (But that said it's the kind of situation that most North American cities can for now only dream about) 5.. Slow streets or zones: ?? kms. (got to find it) - and expanding quite rapidly. 2 out of 5 for now, but fast gaining. 6.. % city area easily cyclable: ca. 90% (my personal estimate, to be cross checked with more informed sources) So call it between 4 and 5. 7.. Cyclable days /year: ca. 90% (personal estimate), ditto, between 4 and 5. 8.. Cycle clubs/voice: Strong/active, plugged in to policy. 3 close to 4 I would say, not least because of their role and performance in the Mobilien and Velib' projects) 9.. Vandalism/public facilities: Not too bad, with some clear exceptions in troubled areas. Let me go for 3+ for now, and we will know a lot more about it after a year of the Velib'. 10.. Driver skills: Gradually getting better as the density of cyclists increased, but still plenty room for improvement. At best 2-3. 11.. Police on bikes (and skates) - Yes, and a great feedback mechanism for the city. I'd say 3 going on 4. Philosophy, Politics, Usefulness: Cycling in cities has until very recently and in almost all cities been considered barely a detail as a daily mobility form. But, and suddenly and strange enough for most of us, it is starting to pierce into the mainstream of transportation, let's call it new mobility policy and practice. In a fast expanding number of cities, it is no longer trivial, and because of rapid evolution in terms of our knowledge of what needs to be done to create safe cycling environments as well as new forms of organization and intermodal collaboration, we now are seeing it as significant means of getting around in our cities. My thought is that if we can work up something along these lines and then share it and make it known, we will have a small but possibly useful tool to advance the cycling agenda in our cities. That would be a great thing to help make happen. Next steps: Now based on this clearly very rough first cut, what I am doing is sharing this with you for comment - and perhaps with the thought that you might run this or a similar drill on your own city and let us see how it looks. In parallel, I am putting this in front of some of the most knowledgeable people here in Paris, and I am sure that they will have their own ideas on this. Once I have some useful feedback, I will then circulate it to the list in the most efficient way I can put my hands on. Hope this works for you. Keep on peddling. Eric Britton PS. I you would care to share this with your lists and networks that would be great. Please invite them to get back to me on this so we can add theri contributions to the rest. The New Mobility Agenda is on line at http://www.newmobility.org The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative http://ecoplan.org Le Fr?ne, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France Tel: +331 4326 1323 +338 7044 0343 Skype: newmobility E: contact@newmobility.org Backup: fekbritton@gmail.com The Commons: A wide open, world-wide open society forum concerned with improving our understanding and control of technology as it impacts on people in our daily lives. Pioneering new concepts for concerned citizens, activists, community groups, entrepreneurs and business; supporting local government as that closest to the people and the problems; increasing the uncomfort zone for hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our long term world wide collaborative efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just world. The New Mobility Agenda: 2007-2010 Francis Eric Knight Britton Innovation advisory The Commons EcoPlan Association 1901 8/10, rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France eric.britton@ecoplan.org fekbritton@gmail.com www.ecoplan.org tel: mobile: Skype ID: +338 7044 0343 +336 7321 5868 ericbritton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070604/165f5cff/attachment.html From Andy at bikeleague.org Mon Jun 4 23:09:21 2007 From: Andy at bikeleague.org (Andy Clarke) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:09:21 -0400 Subject: [sustran] Re: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <48A25B3DE0A3B74F803DF1E4EAB999E2ADCD93@mail.bikeleague.local> Eric et al Maybe these existing tools will be of some assistance to you: 1. Bikeability checklist. Pretty basic, but a good start and great for getting people to do self-assessments of their community or neighborhood. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/cps/checklist.cfm 2. Bicycle Friendly Community program (US version) - more detailed survey with about 75 questions spread over engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement and evaluation topics. http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/communities/ 3. Bicycle Friendly Community program (European version) - self assessment tool for cities focused on planning and policy elements. http://www.goudappelcoffeng.nl/Velo/InfoIndex.php 4. BFC Action Plan - a more political statement with ten key elements outlined. http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/symp_actionplan.htm Andy Clarke ________________________________ From: Eric Britton (Commons) [mailto:eric.britton@ecoplan.org] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 3:55 AM To: LotsLessCars@yahoogroups.com Cc: Sustran Resource Centre; citycycles@newmobility.org Subject: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . . . Thanks Anzir, Roland, Dave, John, Carlos, Chris, Simon, Martin and you in case I forget, Let me see if I can quickly recall we are trying to do here, and put it before you in a form which may with more thought and several more exchanges lead to something useful. Bikeability indicators - Quick introduction: The idea is to see if we can hammer together a fast and dirty (but not too dirty) set of indicators giving a compact idea of "cyclability" in a given place: ease, safety, comfort. I think Stephen put it quite well when he reminded me: "Provided that the settlement is reasonably compact, so that most journeys are within the range of an ordinary person rather than a cycling enthusiast, by far the most important thing is to give cyclists a safe and agreeable environment." That is to say a place in which (a) you would want your family to cycle and (b) which also provides a good prospective environment for city or public bikes of the sort that has recently come into plan in the world of new mobility and whose potential transformation potential is something that I believe we are only now starting to scratch with the new 20,000 free bikes Paris Velib' project that is to open on 15 July. First-cut Paris indicators - example, for comment and correction: Now, here is how I am looking specifically at the situation here in Paris - based on my own, on-street observations and admittedly very subjective indicators. I might add that I received a number of very interesting suggestions for digging deeper, and indeed if this is possible in your city I hope you will give it a try. My concern is not to let the whole thing get too long or too complicated. Otherwise, as we say in the language we tend to speak around here, 'le mieux devient l'ennemi du bien". So modest does it! Here is how my first cut looks this morning for Paris: 1. City size/density: 2.1 million people living in 105 sq. kms, with more than half a million more pouring in from the suburbs, and most often by public transit, every day: - i.e., we have a compact central city that is as such potentially well suited to cycling - if we were to put it on a quasi-arbitrary scale of 1-5, I would give it 5. 2. Cars: ca. 0.5 per household - Nice. Maybe 4 out of 5 and working on it. (Availability of carsharing might be another good car indicator. After all if you share you are not likely to own and that makes you a prime candidate for other ways for getting around in the city. However in Paris we are still in early days. But fast developing.) 3. Transit system coverage: Excellent/dense. (Sure this is subjective, but I an neither selling nor abusing the city, so let's try for 5 in this important bikeability context) 4. Kms of cycle path, protected space: 370 (planned to 500 kms). I'd give it something between 3 and 5. (But that said it's the kind of situation that most North American cities can for now only dream about) 5. Slow streets or zones: ?? kms. (got to find it) - and expanding quite rapidly. 2 out of 5 for now, but fast gaining. 6. % city area easily cyclable: ca. 90% (my personal estimate, to be cross checked with more informed sources) So call it between 4 and 5. 7. Cyclable days /year: ca. 90% (personal estimate), ditto, between 4 and 5. 8. Cycle clubs/voice: Strong/active, plugged in to policy. 3 close to 4 I would say, not least because of their role and performance in the Mobilien and Velib' projects) 9. Vandalism/public facilities: Not too bad, with some clear exceptions in troubled areas. Let me go for 3+ for now, and we will know a lot more about it after a year of the Velib'. 10. Driver skills: Gradually getting better as the density of cyclists increased, but still plenty room for improvement. At best 2-3. 11. Police on bikes (and skates) - Yes, and a great feedback mechanism for the city. I'd say 3 going on 4. Philosophy, Politics, Usefulness: Cycling in cities has until very recently and in almost all cities been considered barely a detail as a daily mobility form. But, and suddenly and strange enough for most of us, it is starting to pierce into the mainstream of transportation, let's call it new mobility policy and practice. In a fast expanding number of cities, it is no longer trivial, and because of rapid evolution in terms of our knowledge of what needs to be done to create safe cycling environments as well as new forms of organization and intermodal collaboration, we now are seeing it as significant means of getting around in our cities. My thought is that if we can work up something along these lines and then share it and make it known, we will have a small but possibly useful tool to advance the cycling agenda in our cities. That would be a great thing to help make happen. Next steps: Now based on this clearly very rough first cut, what I am doing is sharing this with you for comment - and perhaps with the thought that you might run this or a similar drill on your own city and let us see how it looks. In parallel, I am putting this in front of some of the most knowledgeable people here in Paris, and I am sure that they will have their own ideas on this. Once I have some useful feedback, I will then circulate it to the list in the most efficient way I can put my hands on. Hope this works for you. Keep on peddling. Eric Britton PS. I you would care to share this with your lists and networks that would be great. Please invite them to get back to me on this so we can add theri contributions to the rest. The New Mobility Agenda is on line at http://www.newmobility.org The Commons: Open Society Sustainability Initiative http://ecoplan.org Le Fr?ne, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France Tel: +331 4326 1323 +338 7044 0343 Skype: newmobility E: contact@newmobility.org Backup: fekbritton@gmail.com The Commons: A wide open, world-wide open society forum concerned with improving our understanding and control of technology as it impacts on people in our daily lives. Pioneering new concepts for concerned citizens, activists, community groups, entrepreneurs and business; supporting local government as that closest to the people and the problems; increasing the uncomfort zone for hesitant administrators and politicians; and through our long term world wide collaborative efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just world. The New Mobility Agenda: 2007-2010 Francis Eric Knight Britton Innovation advisory The Commons EcoPlan Association 1901 8/10, rue Joseph Bara 75006 Paris, France eric.britton@ecoplan.org fekbritton@gmail.com www.ecoplan.org tel: mobile: Skype ID: +338 7044 0343 +336 7321 5868 ericbritton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070604/325276b3/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Jun 5 19:11:57 2007 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton (Commons)) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 12:11:57 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Local cycling environment indicators: More on . . . Message-ID: Slight apologies to all, but based on the very good feedback received thus far on my yesterday?s note (see below for a sample), I am afraid that my introductory comments to the note on the proposed conditions checklist for your comments were not clearly enough explained. Let me try this again. What I am proposing here for your attention and comments is not, I need to stress, intended as a set of criteria for general cycling safety and well-being in the city, but rather looks specifically for this new-ish phenomenon which we call ?city bikes?, or public bikes if you wish. We define them as follows in both the ?Reinventing transport in cities? volume on New Mobility in Paris, and the second volume currently in process on city bike systems: ?City Bike? - City-wide public bicycle systems Definition:. 24/7 service, mainly for people living and working in city. Fully automated. Street-based system. Requires partnership with local government. Pick up/drop off at many convenient locations. Open to all registered clients. Free or almost free for very short periods (i.e., half hour or enough for a fast hop). So with this in front of us and in the interest of clarity and usefulness, I have now recast the benchmarks into two groups, the first set aiming at guiding future city bike projects, and the second more generally a reminder based on our experience both here in Paris and in other cities about some of the key factors that it takes to make city cycling work for all. In this we need to bear in mind that our target user is the ?ordinary cyclist? who uses her/his two wheels to get around in the city, and not the leisure or sports cyclist. I. Quick introduction ? Preparing for a city-wide public bike program: Cycling in cities has until very recently, and in almost all cities world wide, been considered barely a detail as a daily mobility form. But, and suddenly and strange enough for most of us, it is starting to pierce into the mainstream of transportation, let?s call it new mobility policy and practice. In a fast expanding number of cities, it is no longer trivial, and because of rapid evolution in terms of our knowledge of what needs to be done to create safe cycling environments as well as new forms of organization and intermodal collaboration, we now are seeing its emergence as significant means of getting around in our cities in our day to day lives. Are you going to be ready for a city-wide public bike program? Does your city offer a good prospective environment for public bikes of the sort that has recently come into plan in the world of new mobility and whose potential transformation potential is something that I believe we are only now starting to scratch with the new 20,000 free bikes Paris Velib? project that is to open on 15 July. My thought is that if we can work up something along the following lines and then share it and make it known, we will have a small but possibly useful tool to advance the cycling agenda in our cities. That would be a great thing to help make happen. II City Cycle System Checklist ? (w/ my Paris scorecard, ver. 1.0) 1. City size/density: 2.1 million people living in 105 sq. kms, with more than half a million more pouring in from the suburbs every working day, and most often by public transport: ? i.e., yielding a compact central city that is as such potentially well suited to cycling. If we were to put it on a quasi-arbitrary scale of 1-5, I would give it close to 5. 2. Mixed use: The city must offer a good diversity of land uses and desirable and cycle-convenient destinations. Paris does very well here: 5 of 5. 3. % city easily cyclable (mainly topography): ca. 90% (my personal estimate, to be cross checked with more informed sources) So call it between 4 and 5. 4. Cyclable days /year: ca. 90% (personal estimate), ditto, between 4 and 5. 5. Cycle paths, protected space: 370 (planned to 500 kms). I?d give it something between 3 and 5. (But that said it?s the kind of situation that most North American cities can for now only dream about) 6. Vandalism/public facilities: Not too bad, with some exceptions in troubled areas. Let me go for 3+ for now, and we will know a lot more about it after a year of Velib?. 7. Public information program: Must be on continuing basis. Aimed at improving skill levels of cyclists, motorists, truckers, transit ? and pedestrians ? to behave positively in a more complex, tighter multimodal mobility environment. Guessing 2 out of 5. 8. Image/cool: t a necessary condition of success. The image of cycling, long poor, has gone way upbeat in the last few years. I?d say we are at 3 moving toward 4. If your city does pretty well in these six areas (and let me know if anything here is missing or wrong), then you will probably do well to have a closer look. But before you rush off, you may want to have a look at the following additional points which while they have their main relevance in terms of cycling programs of all sorts, are important to keep in your sites as you plan, implement and maintain you public bike program. III. Other important cycling success points, criteria: 1. Transit system coverage: Excellent/dense. (Sure this is subjective, but I an neither selling nor abusing the city, so let?s try for 4.5 in this important bikeability context) 2. Cars: ca. 0.5 per household ? Nice. Maybe 3.5 and working on it. (Availability of carsharing might be another good car indicator. After all if you share you are not likely to own and that makes you a prime candidate for other ways for getting around in the city. However in Paris we are still in early days. But fast developing. 1.5 out of 5.) 3. Slow streets or zones: ?? kms. (got to find it) ? and expanding quite rapidly. 2 out of 5 for now, but fast gaining. 4. Driver skills: Gradually getting better as the density of cyclists increased, but still plenty room for improvement. At best 2 eventually going on 3. 5. Safe cycle parking: 29,000 places currently available and increasing steadily at about 1000/year. If you cannot leave your bike safely and near to your destination (schools, stations, work, shopping, leisure), you just won?t take it. Current supply may look ample, but with expansion of cycling supply is not keeping up with demand. Guessing it at 2.5 6. Cycle services: Purchase, repairs. Not too bad. I?d give it a 3. 7. Cycle clubs/voice: Strong/active, plugged in to policy. 3 close to 4 I would say, not least because of their role and performance in the Mobilien and Velib? projects) 8. Police on bikes (and skates) ?Great feedback mechanism for city. I?d say 3 going on 4. 9. Continuity: And this is the essential shared condition for success in all cases . We must never lose sight of is that for all this to work and for cycling to take its full place in our cities, everything on this list needs to be followed closely, executed and fine-tuned every day. Continuing of attention and effort is the key. Much like bringing up a family. After all, the city is our family IV. Selection of comments received since yesterday on this: From: Michael Koucky [mailto:michael.koucky@koucky.se] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:17 PM Subject: Re: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at .. Hello Eric The indicators look ok, what I?m missing though is an indicator for cycle parking facilities for comfortable and (reasonably) theft safe cycle parking. The lack of safe cycle parking is a major deterrent for cycling in many cities. Michael Koucky [mailto:michael.koucky@koucky.se] Koucky & Partners AB - http://www.koucky.se/ Consultants for Sustainable Development Arvid Hedvalls Backe 4 b SE-411 33 G?teborg Sweden Ph.: +46-31-20 76 83 Cell: +46-702-10 12 17 --------------------------------------------- From: Saskia [mailto:snmhermans@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:10 PM Subject: Re: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . . . Hello Eric, Thank you for your inspiring mail! I would like to react on your bikeability indicators, as a Dutch urban designer specialized on cycling and cycling infrastructure. 1. City size and density: In the Netherlands we reckon that medium sized towns and cities ( 50.000 to 200.000 people) are more bikeable than big cities. In big cities the urban transport tends to get that well that it becomes a serious competitor for cycling (which means less cyclists, which often leads to less infrastructure etc). In that respect I would give Paris a 3 to 4. The same holds good for density I guess, as soon as a city is dense enough public transport can flourish and people can "avoid" cycling. 2. Cars: Nice indicator but what about bicycles?? In Holland as a whole we do have more bicycles (almost 20 Million) then people ( 17 Million), and about 7.2 Million cars. In terms of households in Holland we do have 77.3% with a car, but we do cycle a lot more than the average Parisian. 3. Transit system coverage: If you mean public transport in Paris it certainly is a 5! But like I said, public transport is a competitor to cycling so should you give it a 5 in this context as adding to bikeability? 4. Kms of cycle path, protected space: Important BUT let's not forget that every trip has a starting point and a destination. If there are no parking facilities they are of little use. The chain is as strong as the weakest part! So I would like to add Bicycle Parking facilities as an indicator, both at home and at destination points (at schools, stations, at work, shops etc). In Holland 45% of the people sometimes do not use their bike because they are afraid it will be stolen. 5. Slow streets or zones: maybe to take together with the km of cycle paths? On the following six points I would say that you know Paris better then I do. They seem reasonable indicators to me 1. % city area easily cyclable: 2. Cyclable days /year: ca. 90% (personal estimate), ditto, between 4 and 5. 3. Cycle clubs/voice: Strong/active, plugged in to policy. 3 close to 4 I would say, not least because of their role and performance in the Mobilien and Velib? projects) 4. Vandalism/public facilities: Not too bad, with some clear exceptions in troubled areas. Let me go for 3+ for now, and we will know a lot more about it after a year of the Velib?. 5. Driver skills: Gradually getting better as the density of cyclists increased, but still plenty room for improvement. At best 2-3. 6. Police on bikes (and skates) ? Yes, and a great feedback mechanism for the city. I?d say 3 going on 4. An other point to add might be cycle services. In the south of France where I live it is difficult to find a place where you can buy a decent bike, let alone have it repaired or get spare parts. This discourages people to invest in cycling here. You have to be part of an in-crowd to be able to find the right places, if they exist at all. Just think of cycling as of car driving; without parking facilities or mechanics you would not use your car either. A last indicator to add might be Sexiness of cycling or Image if you like. Again, cars are a lot about image and status, so is clothing and your address or house. It is not so different for bicycles. In Holland we do have several ministers that do cycle to work, five generations of Royalty by bike. At the Eurotop in Amsterdam Wim Kok, then our Prime minister, gave away bikes to Tony Blair, Chirac, etc in Amsterdam. The picture went all over the world. The sales of bikes had been stagnating for a long time in the 70 and 80, but began to pick up when you finally could choose between more models, notable the all terrain bike, and between more colours then black, brown and blue. As long as cycling is seen as a poor mans solution to travel, the great masses will not be attracted to it. You are all welcome to comment on my reaction, Saskia Hermans --------------------------------------------- From: Andy Clarke [mailto:Andy@bikeleague.org] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 4:09 PM Subject: RE: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . Eric et al Yes, I read the report you sent a week or so ago and understood the goals ? and I agree that it will be important for cities to have a few key indicators in place for a city bike program to work well. I have always had the same thought in relation to TravelSmart or inidividualized marketing programs ? there are a lot of cities in the US where such a program would be a disaster because there just isn?t the infrastructure (transit, bike lanes and trails, even sidewalks) to make it work. But equally there are some where it would work well. In the US I think one of the key factors for city bikes is having a well defined geographic area that is intuitive and well-engrained already in people?s minds. Our metro areas are so spread out a system for the DC metro area, for example, would be incredibly hard ? but a system might work in the Mall area or Monumental Core, or Old Town Alexandria, provided the boundaries are well established and easy to identify or know. European cities are typically so much better defined with a real edge to them. Maybe these existing tools will be of some assistance to you: 1. Bikeability checklist. Pretty basic, but a good start and great for getting people to do self-assessments of their community or neighborhood. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/cps/checklist.cfm 2. Bicycle Friendly Community program (US version) ? more detailed survey with about 75 questions spread over engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement and evaluation topics. http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/communities/ 3. Bicycle Friendly Community program (European version) ? self assessment tool for cities focused on planning and policy elements. http://www.goudappelcoffeng.nl/Velo/InfoIndex.php 4. BFC Action Plan ? a more political statement with ten key elements outlined. http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/symp_actionplan.htm Andy Clarke --------------------------------------------- On Behalf Of Chris Bradshaw Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 5:16 PM Subject: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . . . Eric, > Bikeability indicators - Quick introduction: Since I don't think we are leaders in this field, I think it would be useful to look at the 'bikeability' scales that have already been developed, both to get ideas and perhaps to see if we might wholly import. * http://www.velomondial.net/ has a four-level system -- based more on municipal policy than on on-the-ground results -- for "bicycle friendliness". They also have an on-line "city characteristics questionnaire" that cities can fill in. They also discuss a concept called 'car-sparse areas.' * www.bicyclinginfo.org/de is a site of the Washington DC-based National Center for Bicycling and Walking. It uses the term "bicyclability" and has an equal interest in walking (although the group started out as a cycling org.). * http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/ is the site of the League of American Biocyclists (was League of Am. Wheelmen). It has an award program for qualifying Am. cities. > Parking I find bike parking missing from your list. How much? How do bylaws support it? > City size/density: Size is not as important as density, but to keep trips short (to bicycle distances, without the cyclist, as you point out, having to be an 'enthusiast'), land use is also a factor. Are neighbourhood retail sectors strong? And are such neighbourhoods 'complete'? (as in do they have a full set of destinations to support living on at least a daily-weekly scale? This implies a planning process that is pro-active, such at as property becomes available locally, first consideration is given to what local area _needs_ as to what land use should be chosen to locate there) Chris Bradshaw Ottawa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070605/2e251942/attachment.html From eric.britton at free.fr Tue Jun 5 17:30:20 2007 From: eric.britton at free.fr (Eric Britton (Fr)) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 10:30:20 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Local cycling environment indicators: More on . . . Message-ID: Slight apologies to all, but based on the very good feedback received thus far on my yesterday?s note (see below for a sample), I am afraid that my introductory comments to the note on the proposed conditions checklist for your comments were not clearly enough explained. Let me try this again. What I am proposing here for your attention and comments is not, I need to stress, intended as a set of criteria for general cycling safety and well-being in the city, but rather looks specifically for this new-ish phenomenon which we call ?city bikes?, or public bikes if you wish. We define them as follows in both the ?Reinventing transport in cities? volume on New Mobility in Paris, and the second volume currently in process on city bike systems: ?City Bike? - City-wide public bicycle systems Definition:. 24/7 service, mainly for people living and working in city. Fully automated. Street-based system. Requires partnership with local government. Pick up/drop off at many convenient locations. Open to all registered clients. Free or almost free for very short periods (i.e., half hour or enough for a fast hop). So with this in front of us and in the interest of clarity and usefulness, I have now recast the benchmarks into two groups, the first set aiming at guiding future city bike projects, and the second more generally a reminder based on our experience both here in Paris and in other cities about some of the key factors that it takes to make city cycling work for all. In this we need to bear in mind that our target user is the ?ordinary cyclist? who uses her/his two wheels to get around in the city, and not the leisure or sports cyclist. I. Quick introduction ? Preparing for a city-wide public bike program: Cycling in cities has until very recently, and in almost all cities world wide, been considered barely a detail as a daily mobility form. But, and suddenly and strange enough for most of us, it is starting to pierce into the mainstream of transportation, let?s call it new mobility policy and practice. In a fast expanding number of cities, it is no longer trivial, and because of rapid evolution in terms of our knowledge of what needs to be done to create safe cycling environments as well as new forms of organization and intermodal collaboration, we now are seeing its emergence as significant means of getting around in our cities in our day to day lives. Are you going to be ready for a city-wide public bike program? Does your city offer a good prospective environment for public bikes of the sort that has recently come into plan in the world of new mobility and whose potential transformation potential is something that I believe we are only now starting to scratch with the new 20,000 free bikes Paris Velib? project that is to open on 15 July. My thought is that if we can work up something along the following lines and then share it and make it known, we will have a small but possibly useful tool to advance the cycling agenda in our cities. That would be a great thing to help make happen. II City Cycle System Checklist ? (w/ my Paris scorecard, ver. 1.0) 1. City size/density: 2.1 million people living in 105 sq. kms, with more than half a million more pouring in from the suburbs every working day, and most often by public transport: ? i.e., yielding a compact central city that is as such potentially well suited to cycling. If we were to put it on a quasi-arbitrary scale of 1-5, I would give it close to 5. 2. Mixed use: The city must offer a good diversity of land uses and desirable and cycle-convenient destinations. Paris does very well here: 5 of 5. 3. % city easily cyclable (mainly topography): ca. 90% (my personal estimate, to be cross checked with more informed sources) So call it between 4 and 5. 4. Cyclable days /year: ca. 90% (personal estimate), ditto, between 4 and 5. 5. Cycle paths, protected space: 370 (planned to 500 kms). I?d give it something between 3 and 5. (But that said it?s the kind of situation that most North American cities can for now only dream about) 6. Vandalism/public facilities: Not too bad, with some exceptions in troubled areas. Let me go for 3+ for now, and we will know a lot more about it after a year of Velib?. 7. Public information program: Must be on continuing basis. Aimed at improving skill levels of cyclists, motorists, truckers, transit ? and pedestrians ? to behave positively in a more complex, tighter multimodal mobility environment. Guessing 2 out of 5. 8. Image/cool: t a necessary condition of success. The image of cycling, long poor, has gone way upbeat in the last few years. I?d say we are at 3 moving toward 4. If your city does pretty well in these six areas (and let me know if anything here is missing or wrong), then you will probably do well to have a closer look. But before you rush off, you may want to have a look at the following additional points which while they have their main relevance in terms of cycling programs of all sorts, are important to keep in your sites as you plan, implement and maintain you public bike program. III. Other important cycling success points, criteria: 1. Transit system coverage: Excellent/dense. (Sure this is subjective, but I an neither selling nor abusing the city, so let?s try for 4.5 in this important bikeability context) 2. Cars: ca. 0.5 per household ? Nice. Maybe 3.5 and working on it. (Availability of carsharing might be another good car indicator. After all if you share you are not likely to own and that makes you a prime candidate for other ways for getting around in the city. However in Paris we are still in early days. But fast developing. 1.5 out of 5.) 3. Slow streets or zones: ?? kms. (got to find it) ? and expanding quite rapidly. 2 out of 5 for now, but fast gaining. 4. Driver skills: Gradually getting better as the density of cyclists increased, but still plenty room for improvement. At best 2 eventually going on 3. 5. Safe cycle parking: 29,000 places currently available and increasing steadily at about 1000/year. If you cannot leave your bike safely and near to your destination (schools, stations, work, shopping, leisure), you just won?t take it. Current supply may look ample, but with expansion of cycling supply is not keeping up with demand. Guessing it at 2.5 6. Cycle services: Purchase, repairs. Not too bad. I?d give it a 3. 7. Cycle clubs/voice: Strong/active, plugged in to policy. 3 close to 4 I would say, not least because of their role and performance in the Mobilien and Velib? projects) 8. Police on bikes (and skates) ?Great feedback mechanism for city. I?d say 3 going on 4. 9. Continuity: And this is the essential shared condition for success in all cases . We must never lose sight of is that for all this to work and for cycling to take its full place in our cities, everything on this list needs to be followed closely, executed and fine-tuned every day. Continuing of attention and effort is the key. Much like bringing up a family. After all, the city is our family IV. Selection of comments received since yesterday on this: From: Michael Koucky [mailto:michael.koucky@koucky.se] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:17 PM Subject: Re: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at .. Hello Eric The indicators look ok, what I?m missing though is an indicator for cycle parking facilities for comfortable and (reasonably) theft safe cycle parking. The lack of safe cycle parking is a major deterrent for cycling in many cities. Michael Koucky [mailto:michael.koucky@koucky.se] Koucky & Partners AB - http://www.koucky.se/ Consultants for Sustainable Development Arvid Hedvalls Backe 4 b SE-411 33 G?teborg Sweden Ph.: +46-31-20 76 83 Cell: +46-702-10 12 17 --------------------------------------------- From: Saskia [mailto:snmhermans@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:10 PM Subject: Re: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . . . Hello Eric, Thank you for your inspiring mail! I would like to react on your bikeability indicators, as a Dutch urban designer specialized on cycling and cycling infrastructure. 1. City size and density: In the Netherlands we reckon that medium sized towns and cities ( 50.000 to 200.000 people) are more bikeable than big cities. In big cities the urban transport tends to get that well that it becomes a serious competitor for cycling (which means less cyclists, which often leads to less infrastructure etc). In that respect I would give Paris a 3 to 4. The same holds good for density I guess, as soon as a city is dense enough public transport can flourish and people can "avoid" cycling. 2. Cars: Nice indicator but what about bicycles?? In Holland as a whole we do have more bicycles (almost 20 Million) then people ( 17 Million), and about 7.2 Million cars. In terms of households in Holland we do have 77.3% with a car, but we do cycle a lot more than the average Parisian. 3. Transit system coverage: If you mean public transport in Paris it certainly is a 5! But like I said, public transport is a competitor to cycling so should you give it a 5 in this context as adding to bikeability? 4. Kms of cycle path, protected space: Important BUT let's not forget that every trip has a starting point and a destination. If there are no parking facilities they are of little use. The chain is as strong as the weakest part! So I would like to add Bicycle Parking facilities as an indicator, both at home and at destination points (at schools, stations, at work, shops etc). In Holland 45% of the people sometimes do not use their bike because they are afraid it will be stolen. 5. Slow streets or zones: maybe to take together with the km of cycle paths? On the following six points I would say that you know Paris better then I do. They seem reasonable indicators to me 1. % city area easily cyclable: 2. Cyclable days /year: ca. 90% (personal estimate), ditto, between 4 and 5. 3. Cycle clubs/voice: Strong/active, plugged in to policy. 3 close to 4 I would say, not least because of their role and performance in the Mobilien and Velib? projects) 4. Vandalism/public facilities: Not too bad, with some clear exceptions in troubled areas. Let me go for 3+ for now, and we will know a lot more about it after a year of the Velib?. 5. Driver skills: Gradually getting better as the density of cyclists increased, but still plenty room for improvement. At best 2-3. 6. Police on bikes (and skates) ? Yes, and a great feedback mechanism for the city. I?d say 3 going on 4. An other point to add might be cycle services. In the south of France where I live it is difficult to find a place where you can buy a decent bike, let alone have it repaired or get spare parts. This discourages people to invest in cycling here. You have to be part of an in-crowd to be able to find the right places, if they exist at all. Just think of cycling as of car driving; without parking facilities or mechanics you would not use your car either. A last indicator to add might be Sexiness of cycling or Image if you like. Again, cars are a lot about image and status, so is clothing and your address or house. It is not so different for bicycles. In Holland we do have several ministers that do cycle to work, five generations of Royalty by bike. At the Eurotop in Amsterdam Wim Kok, then our Prime minister, gave away bikes to Tony Blair, Chirac, etc in Amsterdam. The picture went all over the world. The sales of bikes had been stagnating for a long time in the 70 and 80, but began to pick up when you finally could choose between more models, notable the all terrain bike, and between more colours then black, brown and blue. As long as cycling is seen as a poor mans solution to travel, the great masses will not be attracted to it. You are all welcome to comment on my reaction, Saskia Hermans --------------------------------------------- From: Andy Clarke [mailto:Andy@bikeleague.org] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 4:09 PM Subject: RE: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . Eric et al Yes, I read the report you sent a week or so ago and understood the goals ? and I agree that it will be important for cities to have a few key indicators in place for a city bike program to work well. I have always had the same thought in relation to TravelSmart or inidividualized marketing programs ? there are a lot of cities in the US where such a program would be a disaster because there just isn?t the infrastructure (transit, bike lanes and trails, even sidewalks) to make it work. But equally there are some where it would work well. In the US I think one of the key factors for city bikes is having a well defined geographic area that is intuitive and well-engrained already in people?s minds. Our metro areas are so spread out a system for the DC metro area, for example, would be incredibly hard ? but a system might work in the Mall area or Monumental Core, or Old Town Alexandria, provided the boundaries are well established and easy to identify or know. European cities are typically so much better defined with a real edge to them. Maybe these existing tools will be of some assistance to you: 1. Bikeability checklist. Pretty basic, but a good start and great for getting people to do self-assessments of their community or neighborhood. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/cps/checklist.cfm 2. Bicycle Friendly Community program (US version) ? more detailed survey with about 75 questions spread over engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement and evaluation topics. http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/communities/ 3. Bicycle Friendly Community program (European version) ? self assessment tool for cities focused on planning and policy elements. http://www.goudappelcoffeng.nl/Velo/InfoIndex.php 4. BFC Action Plan ? a more political statement with ten key elements outlined. http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/symp_actionplan.htm Andy Clarke --------------------------------------------- On Behalf Of Chris Bradshaw Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 5:16 PM Subject: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . . . Eric, > Bikeability indicators - Quick introduction: Since I don't think we are leaders in this field, I think it would be useful to look at the 'bikeability' scales that have already been developed, both to get ideas and perhaps to see if we might wholly import. * http://www.velomondial.net/ has a four-level system -- based more on municipal policy than on on-the-ground results -- for "bicycle friendliness". They also have an on-line "city characteristics questionnaire" that cities can fill in. They also discuss a concept called 'car-sparse areas.' * www.bicyclinginfo.org/de is a site of the Washington DC-based National Center for Bicycling and Walking. It uses the term "bicyclability" and has an equal interest in walking (although the group started out as a cycling org.). * http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/ is the site of the League of American Biocyclists (was League of Am. Wheelmen). It has an award program for qualifying Am. cities. > Parking I find bike parking missing from your list. How much? How do bylaws support it? > City size/density: Size is not as important as density, but to keep trips short (to bicycle distances, without the cyclist, as you point out, having to be an 'enthusiast'), land use is also a factor. Are neighbourhood retail sectors strong? And are such neighbourhoods 'complete'? (as in do they have a full set of destinations to support living on at least a daily-weekly scale? This implies a planning process that is pro-active, such at as property becomes available locally, first consideration is given to what local area _needs_ as to what land use should be chosen to locate there) Chris Bradshaw Ottawa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070605/002c4120/attachment.html From eric.britton at ecoplan.org Tue Jun 5 22:52:16 2007 From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org (Eric Britton (Commons)) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 15:52:16 +0200 Subject: [sustran] On the politics of transportation -- and breaking gridlock Message-ID: (The following note came in this morning from Jo?o Lacerda of Transporte Ativo n Rio de Janeiro. I am sure that these are familiar themes to many of you out there, but it is important that we keep them in mind. Eric Britton.) Dear Eric, First of all thanks for your help concerning the Clinton Foundation activities here in Rio. But reading your draft about Paris and having Rio?s daily life (concerning mostly transportation) I see so much room for improvement here. The biggest problem is that we lack the most needed leadership to put simple and effective matters into place. Rio?s inhabitants (the Cariocas) live quite frightened and the car represents a lot. If I?m not mistaken, we are second to S?o Paulo in the biggest fleet of bullet proof cars. Those who can, protect themselves more and more, closing their eyes to city needs. With such a scared elite it is quite hard, politically, to implement the needed change in behavior. From what I can see, city planners here lack the daily knowledge of how the city works for those who don?t use the private car. In an informal conversation I once had with Enrique Pe?alosa he told me the hardest part about implementing the BRT system in Bogot? was dealing with private bus owners. The complexity here is close to that, we have fewer bus operators, but still a very powerful group. Despite the difficulties, I tend to believe that, with political will, improvements in mega cities from the south are capable of reaching quite big goals. With all that in mind, I leave you a question that I can?t see any simple answer. How to build political will for the New Mobility? In our relationship with the city administration they seldom look down at our ideas for improvements in bicycle mobility, but it always seem to take anywhere from 2 to 10 years for ideas to become reality. Are there any good examples scattered around of "pressure in the fast lane" for better mobility in any world city? Last but not least, in case you might want to work on your Portuguese reading skills, one of Transporte Ativo?s members has recently made a brief cycling planning manual for his hometown. http://blog.transporteativo.org.br/2007/05/30/projeto-cicloviario/ or the full document in http://www.ta.org.br/site/banco/7manuais/arquivos3/plan_ciclo_moc.pdf Sorry for the quite long email. And if there is any objective need you think I might help, just let me know. Best Regards, Jo?o Guilherme Lacerda ---------------------- Transporte Ativo - www.ta.org.br Membro do F?rum Brasileiro de Mobilidade por Bicicleta Pr?mio ANTP-Abradibi de Est?mulo ao Uso da Bicicleta 2005 Rio de Janeiro - Brasil +55 (21) 9588 5618 Skype: Dysprosio From eric.britton at free.fr Wed Jun 6 15:06:26 2007 From: eric.britton at free.fr (Eric Britton (Fr)) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 08:06:26 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Local cycling environment indicators: More on . . . Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Chris Bradshaw [mailto:c_bradshaw@rogers.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 4:30 PM Eric, Good that you remind us (and yourself) that we are looking as bike-sharing-ability, not the more generic bike-ability. First, bike parking is built in for shared-bike programs (SBP), since these are the 'docking stations' where bikes are picked up and dropped off. Poor bike parking generally will _help_ SBP, since the latter has parking that normal private bikes don't. On that point, watch out that the stations are located so as not to take away sidewalk space where there is little to give, so that pedestrians don't go to the media to complain (it is best for the stations to be carved off from street -- parking -- space). Second, given this focus, what about a cursory look at cities that have SBPs, to surmise what they have in common -- and likewise what distinguishes cities that don't have them. [I note the Andy Clark has pointed you to two of the three sites I mentioned] As to the 'market' for SBPs, I would play up two of them: 1) workers who, having come by transit or been dropped off by a driver-partner or rideshare provider, is without transportation until the end of the workday, and 2) tourists/business travellers who also don't have a car with them during their stay in the city. For this latter group, good maps of the streets with common destinations clearly marked are important, perhaps even on streetside signage. > Vandalism/public facilities: This is also a factor, like parking, that helps SBPs, since the latter provide more secure parking, AND the distinctive (and utilitarian) design of the bikes makes them less 'steal-able.' > 1. City size and density: In the Netherlands we reckon that medium > sized towns and cities ( 50.000 to 200.000 people) are more bikeable than > big cities. I generally agree. > 2. Cars: Nice indicator but what about bicycles?? North America also has surprisingly high bike-ownership levels. But they are taken out very infrequently, mostly for leisure trips, and very often the first few kms are as cargo being carried in/on a car. > 3. Transit system coverage: If you mean public transport in Paris it > certainly is a 5! But like I said, public transport is a competitor to > cycling so should you give it a 5 in this context as adding to > bikeability? The No. Am. penchant for putting racks on buses can be replaced by providing bikes at destinations, meaning that there might be an increased demand for bike parking at bus stops at the other end of the bike trips. > 4. Kms of cycle path, protected space: I would downplay this, since most of the use of the bikes will be for utilitarian purposes, which makes it much less likely that these separate R-O-Ws will be used. Pathways are too often lacking direct access to adjacent properties. > 5. Slow streets or zones: maybe to take together with the km of > cycle paths? Increased bicucle will slow streets by itself, and the kinds of people using these bikes (and because the bikes will take a bit of adjusting to) will mean they will have more impact on street use than the person using their own bike. Cyclists are an important part of 'traffic calming.' And remember my idea for CURBBBBs, Cars Under Restraint for Bikes, Blades, Boards, and Bus Boardings, where the right-most through lane has a speed limit half that of the other lanes. Chris Bradshaw Ottawa From eric.britton at free.fr Wed Jun 6 15:06:24 2007 From: eric.britton at free.fr (Eric Britton (Fr)) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 08:06:24 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Local cycling environment indicators: More on . . . Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Michael Yeates [mailto:michael@yeatesit.biz] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:15 AM Thanks for the clarification(s) Eric ... Can you forward this on to the relevant others you listed below as I felt sure these addresses would reject my email or send it too widely? Also pardon my delay but time-wise, out of synch being in Oz ... I hope this is not too much ... and is seen as constructive and informative based on some 15-20 years experience combining professional and advocacy roles in cycling and disabled access (and by definition, including the newly rediscovered mode of transport, walking). I will position myself fairly and squarely by saying that far too many people (tend to or inadvertently) ignore cycling because it is a real problem ... whether in urban, suburban, rural or freeway road situations. People forget bicycles are vehicles and in most places, are treated as such by regulations but not by facility management, ie road management. Cycling shows up the way pedestrians have been corralled into minimum space and increasingly reduced in importance and priority. Cycling also shows up how roads and streets have been given over almost totally to high speed motorised transport whether car, motorbike, truck or bus and given over by deliberate policy decisions. The consequence is that trying to segregate cyclists by separating them from the roads (eg by paths or bike lanes shows up the technical problems eg at turns at intersections) or from pedestrians (eg by NOT permitting use of footpaths, verges, etc shows the inappropriate mix with peds). BOTH cyclists AND pedestrians are ALL potentially users of (i) the WHOLE urban environment and (ii) ALL public transport ... from cradle to grave ... (at http://www.yeatesit.biz/transresource.htm see "Integrating urban design: meeting the needs of people"). I strongly side with the view that the road environment should be appropriate to its environment as implicit/explicit in Vision Zero ... so urban roads and streets should ALWAYS be designed and/or if existing be managed, to be almost 100% safe AND convenient for ALL inhabitants and road users ... the convenience implying equity. But out on a freeway is definitely no place for peds and bikes so separate barrier-free infrastructure facilities should also ALWAYS be present, still to preserve equity of access and mobility "for people of all ages and abilities" (for some of these phrases, see further on). So cycling gets put in the "too hard" basket ... but therefore it is also at great risk of being given the occasional token or "symbolic" gesture to give politicians a warm feeling and to have something token to show to the others (ie non-cyclists and cyclist-haters) when cyclists "complain" or advocate change. And as we well know, the transport policy area is fraught with different views and needs so anything at all marginal or able to be made seem peripheral is quickly able to be ignored ... UNTIL ... There are strong parallels with the discrimination against people with disabilities ... rather than accepting individual differences and needs ... which with a male dominant world view results in rather-too-macho environments based on early to middle age male views of need ... the others being to various extents, ignored or marginalised hence often far greater proportion of male than female cyclists and pedestrians ... Also being here in Oz (which is rapidly becoming the most car and oil dependent country and producer of CO2 per capita and by export of coal on the planet), I am acutely aware of the need to examine very closely the extremely important differences between what I would call (mis)perceptions and realities ... as viewed by a large range of types (or 'modes' if you like) of cycling. Increasingly I am therefore a bit suspicious (or put another way given my academic experiences and training, prone to critical analysis) .... I am also aware of the Parisian advocacy for cycling having visited and stayed in Paris for a few days in 1995 before attending the Velo-city Conference in Basel/Basle ... The Parisian cyclists were lobbying to host V-C but lamenting that nothing was being done FOR cycling/cyclists in Paris and all requests were being rejected ... yet in 1996, at the Velo-Australis Conference held in Fremantle (Perth Western Australia), the Parisians were delighted ... suddenly the Parisian government had changed its mind and had installed a number of key bike lanes (and the advocacy had changed to trying to resolve the badly designed bike lanes resulting from installing them in a hurry without consulting the users ... I can elaborate on that aspect separately). I can confirm the Parisian cyclists stories as I was there again 1997 and have some photos ... What happened to cause the 180 degree change in Paris? In December 1995, the RER-Metro drivers (bus drivers too) went on strike and people suddenly "discovered" the bike ... the shops sold out of them, old bikes were restored to use from cellars, sheds and attics etc ... and people found just how convenient it was (despite the weather) esp when the roads were congested with car drivers ... To some extent, that may appear to be an exaggeration but would prefer to take the cyclists view to that of non-cyclists esp anyone not now accepting of the role of cycling ... if only to ensure (mis)perceptions don't colour the perceptions and realities. Message 1 ... TDM (ie induced congestion or road space reallocation or what I call "endorsement" of the likely presence of cyclists "on the road") can make any city safe(r) for cycling and ALWAYS more convenient once people have a need or perception of a need to overcome the (mis)perceptions ... Any city? Most are designed long before cars ... even most of the cities, towns and villages in Australia (Canberra the exception being master planned in the early 1900s) ... so road management has increasingly accommodated more and faster motorised traffic to the detriment of walking and cycling ... but that CAN always be reversed, incrementally, at a rate to suit and in areas where there is more support or logic in doing so. Inner city CBD areas and tourist areas, university areas etc are prime examples ... Message 2 ... Where to start ("reinventing" the urbs ... although I don't really like the term as per email I sent to Eric) and why it is critical ie in gaining support from currrent and potential users and others who gain as well as having a stronger rationale that will encourage people to (begrudgingly) agree in principle even if they themselves don't change ... this is why "government "endorsement" of cyclists "on the road" is so important ... as an increase in cyclists (and pedestrians) can change the road management priorities eg towards the York hierarchy... (Mis)perceptions seem to drive the opposition to cycling "on the road" ... it is commonly considered too dangerous so detailed analysis and comparison with other modes is essential as is similar analysis of the various costs and benefits ... for me, Mayer Hillman's work (with others) on the disbenefit of compulsory cycle helmet wearing and on the failure to ensure cities have remained safe for children (eg school trips) and more recently on CO2 as measures of how UNsafe and dangerous cities have "become" (in fact this is the direct result of deliberate policy and road management decisions) is particularly useful along with his argument that promoting public transport as a solution to over-use of cars is NOT a solution at all because it still encourages long(er) trips. So from there, the EU booklets on "Kids on the move" and "Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities" (c1999 so nearly 10 years published and I assume still on the web) provide useful info and rationale/justification for support FOR cycling (and walking) ... in particular emphasising the need to create a PERCEPTION of a safe enough environment "on the road" ... Message 3 ... Needs sufficient justification and "endorsement" (ie marketing support from government) to at least challenge and hopefully reduce/overcome opposition including hypothetical opposition based on "but what if .......?" type questioning. The next issue is to address the (mis)perceptions of danger and UNsafety "on the roads" ... I wrote about this in WTT some time back so a search there will provide that view.. The key issue is to recognise that pedestrians (noting that in Australia, the Pedestrian Council of Australia includes people with disabilities as pedestrians) and cyclists mean a requirement to provide what I call "safety+convenience" for people of all ages and abilities (you can find the arguments at http://www.yeatesit.biz/transresource.htm at "My Papers" and at "My Conference Papers" ). However you really need to scan through these papers as they are a series of steps - each building the arguments encapsulated in the titles of two of the papers viz "Road safety: for all road users?" and "Vision Zero: a Dream .... or a challenge?" ). So what is a city environment like when it addresses these issues? To me , Graz wins hands down ... although by no means ideal, it is light years ahead of most other cities I know (of) ... and having experienced it, can vouch for it despite some inevitable grumbling that there has not been sufficient support to achieve and ensure its goals ... the video from the City of Graz (EU or EC funded) emphasises the point ... the essential being to ensure integration of strategies (your list helps here) in particular in the case of Graz, the decision to make 30km/h apply city-wide then use increased speed limits only where appropriate and where no negative impacts on the pedestrians and cyclists ... You might consider trying to contact Prof Gerd Sammer who provided the "research and evaluation" of the 30km/h concept ... sadly I found out that the City Engineer who worked with and presumably facilitated the project has since died. I have quite a few of his papers (in English) but only in paper format as the work was carried out in the early-mid 1990s ... and it would seem to me, appears to have been ignored or forgotten since. Interestingly, both China and India (the latter subject to some excellent research, not sure about the former although my experience there confirms it) demonstrate that congested and/or slow speed traffic results in a mixed traffic environment that is both safe and convenient for pedestrians and cyclists ... a useful concept to draw from the "south" to the "north" ...! Message 4 ... reducing speed limits is a key strategy to making ALL roads safer ... but equally, it is the increased priority of pedestrians and cyclists "of all ages and abilities" implied by (s)lower speed limits that "endorses" their likely presence and allows them to be more assertive of their entitlement to use the roads with increased safety+convenience" . Next is to avoid what I call token or "symbolic" gestures ... ie "one off" gestures NOT integrated (obviously this project is an implied concern in your efforts here re the 'city bikes' ). These are too easily introduced for political reasons then allowed to wilt through lack of integration AND ongoing support and monitoring/evaluation to ensure any weaknesses are addressed. Simply deciding to make 'city bikes' available could turn out to be a dreadful failure and extremely counter-productive if for example, they don't get used and nobody is responsible for finding out why and ensuring the problem or (mis)perception is resolved. Two examples ... As you would be aware, Oz was very early if not first in the world in making wearing of helmets mandatory (as distinct from promoting them as a public health benefit) ... there is a whole issue there including the risk compensation aspects but it would appear that the decision has been very counter-productive (an issue for separate discussion if needed). We can't for a highly relevant example ever expect 'city bikes' to work well as helmets make hiring almost impossible and having to carry your own helmet in case you decide to use a 'city bike' destroys the whole concept ... It happens by a strange quirk of fate that our Lord Mayor (City of Brisbane ... the only large city-wide local authority in Oz ... pop 900,000) happened to see the USA front mounted bike racks in Seattle or Portland not sure which and from there, without checking the constraints, committed Brisbane which runs its own buses to introducing them. Its a long story but in principle, our design rules prevent them ... so to resolve the conflict and back down, it was agreed to trial them ... not surprisingly (with >40,000 in use in the USA), the trial concerns did not arise ... so the limited number of services (only 3, one of which was a lemon) were allowed to deteriorate ie with buses without racks turning up so confidence was destroyed ... and just last week the current Lord Mayor has announced the end of the "trial" (which I thought had officially ended several years ago) and the end of the bike racks ... as the trial had not proved satisfactory ... So although I don't know the current situation in Paris (and sadly missed the Velo-city in Paris as I had decided not to travel overseas so much based on the CO2 and other aspects of air travel ... Eric one question for you to consider too as there are alternatives to be explored to model post-flying at no real cost??), IF the road environment is not sufficiently friendly for cycling and pedestrians, why would 'city bikes' be successful? Again a question of (mis)perceptions and realities. IF cycling has increased quite dramatically in Paris to the point where "you" feel it is safe enough to cycle, then a couple more questions follow. Have "you" actually taken up cycling as one of your mode choices either for part or for whole of trip? And if not, why not? Should the current cyclists and pedestrians be asked what it is that would improve Paris for them? Care needed here to ensure a wide range of options and don't forget about integration of them, both sequentially and incrementally, to ensure maximum success (ie as more users) and minimum opposition. Although I have not been there, it is worth considering if the road environment and "endorsement" of cyclists and pedestrians is similar in terms of "safety+convenience" (but NOT necessarily in terms of facilities) to say Copenhagen where the 'city bikes' have been most successful? I say NOT in terms of facilities because Paris (as well as experiences in Graz, and in India, China and any congested city) have shown that the facilities in Copenhagen are NOT necessary ... One could also cite Amsterdam to argue that the facilities there are NO LONGER necessary ... but were necessary ONLY to preserve road space ... but now we know that really is not necessary IF as Peter Newman et al, point out, places like China don't give away the congested mixed use (but NOT spare or wasted) road space to cater for more cars at the expense of pedestrian and cycling modes ... Message 5 ... Who is the target user and what is the road environment really like? It does NOT have to be any more "pleasant" than trying to use the other modes eg crowded, smelly, polluted, etc IF it is sufficiently "safe+convenient" to compete for all or part of a trip. The picture post card photos of bikepaths along rivers seem to me to be an unhelpful distraction if not a fallacy given many were formed for horses ... and under pretty limited (and to cyclists and pedestrians) almost totally irrelevant design constraints ...!!! So IF the roads and streets ARE for personal mobility (by whatever combinations of modes), then any reluctance to "endorse" their increased use by pedestrians and cyclists needs to be critically examined to ensure protecting and increasing "car dominance" is not the hidden (whether intended or unintended) rationale or consequence. Finally, having made use of the French train system bikes, 'city bike' is just one option ... along with many others. So location of the 'city bike' stations is incredibly important as is ensuring they are always available when one needs one. It might be that without say means to cross the big avenues (ie a lack of "endorsement" and integration), novices may not want to use the 'city bikes' BUT clever marketing of the concept might concentrate on say, increasing the use of the RER-Metro by emphasising the benefit of using a 'city bike' to get to the RERT-Metro station rather than waiting for a local bus or walking or driving ... This is particularly important ()to the middle and outer rings of cities and towns) as my efforts and experience here in Oz suggest there is a strong reluctance to promote cycling "on the road" in the less dense sprawling areas yet this is EXACTLY where it is needed AND it offers a 4-5 times quicker means than walking but with the benefits of a car in terms of personal convenience. So finding some locations for the 'city bikes' in the middle and outer rings of Paris (selecting areas with a high probability of relative success) would be vital to NOT having the 'city bikes' seen as ONLY a CBD concept ... Essentially a slogan used here in the late 1980s for Geelong Bike Plan in the 1980s I think is relevant ... "every street is a cycling street" ... but must not then be ignored as the danger aspects of current road management are used to NOT "endorse the likely presence of cyclists on the road"... Again this is why I have pursued the Denver USA concept of "BIKE" symbols on the road to show ALL road users HOW to "Share the Road" (a common road safety slogan to use an piggyback on) and to show WHERE "on the road" to expect to come across cyclists ... more about this at http://www.yeatesit.biz/transresource.htm ... under "My conference Papers" and "BURG" ... This is an idea Paris might well consider as it is found (ie literally 'discovered' ) in use in many locations but usually only after people have seen our or the US examples and then they say, oh yes, I know what you mean ... we have those ... And despite its reputation for cycling facilities, ie "bike lanes" and "bike paths", Amsterdam is another illustration of (mis)perceptions for there too, the "BIKE" symbols are used as we use them here ... ;-) I would like to try to ensure that issues such as the need to enjoy cycling are not used to muddy the realities ... the facts are as follows: Regarding transport (as distinct from say recreation, sport or in some cases tourism), this is a TRANSPORT issue so do we really (need to) "enjoy" the environment when driving or using trains or buses? Do we insist on an enjoyable environment for the users before locating or building new roads? I guess road tunnels would not fit this concept well so why not have cycling and walking as little different to other modes? How safe is sufficient compared to other modes esp if total "safety" improves as in Graz? How convenient is necessary or sufficient? How can multi-mode options be best utilised to promote the benefits of cycling part of the trip to gain a better outcome eg access to a high frequency public transport service? How can (or indeed how will) "localness" be promoted? The aim here is to resolve better the Mayer Hillman dilemma re public transport and cars and counter the effect of the fixed and in some cases increasing daily travel time allowance combined with faster and better public transport and roads such that the local precinct is emphasised rather than distant travel encouraged. Of course for bikes, "local" can be several kilometres EASY travel in say 10-15 minutes) such that "local" amenity, safety, etc is improved WITHIN big cities many of which have forms of local government with an EASY cycling scale (eg the Parisian arrondissements within the greater Paris of Ile de France) although as in London, sometimes a bit small (eg some of the smaller Boroughs) and where these have villages embedded in them? The worst cases seem to be where one government controls the whole city and surrounds .. unless an agreeable Lord Mayor is (or realistically, could be) elected... ;-) ... as the dominant majority view tends to be reflected in voting (noting that the kids don't get to vote). And above all to reiterate, how can any particular initiative be integrated and supported/protected and evaluated until or such that future projects are mutually supported over time? Hope that is not all too much and too strong ... happy to discuss or flesh out detail ... I would not bother if I did not consider it worth the effort and potential outcomes. regards ... Michael Yeates Convenor Bicycle User Research Group Cyclists Urban Speedlimit Taskforce Public Transport Alliance (these cover from very local to national and international ... drawing on experience globally to inform locally and vice versa ..........) At 06:30 PM 5/06/2007, Eric Britton \(Fr\) wrote: Slight apologies to all, but based on the very good feedback received thus far on my yesterday?s note (see below for a sample), I am afraid that my introductory comments to the note on the proposed conditions checklist for your comments were not clearly enough explained. Let me try this again. What I am proposing here for your attention and comments is not, I need to stress, intended as a set of criteria for general cycling safety and well-being in the city, but rather looks specifically for this new-ish phenomenon which we call ?city bikes?, or public bikes if you wish. We define them as follows in both the ?Reinventing transport in cities? volume on New Mobility in Paris, and the second volume currently in process on city bike systems: ?City Bike? - City-wide public bicycle systems Definition:. 24/7 service, mainly for people living and working in city. Fully automated. Street-based system. Requires partnership with local government. Pick up/drop off at many convenient locations. Open to all registered clients. Free or almost free for very short periods (i.e., half hour or enough for a fast hop). So with this in front of us and in the interest of clarity and usefulness, I have now recast the benchmarks into two groups, the first set aiming at guiding future city bike projects, and the second more generally a reminder based on our experience both here in Paris and in other cities about some of the key factors that it takes to make city cycling work for all. In this we need to bear in mind that our target user is the ?ordinary cyclist? who uses her/his two wheels to get around in the city, and not the leisure or sports cyclist. I. Quick introduction ? Preparing for a city-wide public bike program: Cycling in cities has until very recently, and in almost all cities world wide, been considered barely a detail as a daily mobility form. But, and suddenly and strange enough for most of us, it is starting to pierce into the mainstream of transportation, let?s call it new mobility policy and practice. In a fast expanding number of cities, it is no longer trivial, and because of rapid evolution in terms of our knowledge of what needs to be done to create safe cycling environments as well as new forms of organization and intermodal collaboration, we now are seeing its emergence as significant means of getting around in our cities in our day to day lives. Are you going to be ready for a city-wide public bike program? Does your city offer a good prospective environment for public bikes of the sort that has recently come into plan in the world of new mobility and whose potential transformation potential is something that I believe we are only now starting to scratch with the new 20,000 free bikes Paris Velib? project that is to open on 15 July. My thought is that if we can work up something along the following lines and then share it and make it known, we will have a small but possibly useful tool to advance the cycling agenda in our cities. That would be a great thing to help make happen. II City Cycle System Checklist ? (w/ my Paris scorecard, ver. 1.0) 1. City size/density: 2.1 million people living in 105 sq. kms, with more than half a million more pouring in from the suburbs every working day, and most often by public transport: ? i.e., yielding a compact central city that is as such potentially well suited to cycling. If we were to put it on a quasi-arbitrary scale of 1-5, I would give it close to 5. 2. Mixed use: The city must offer a good diversity of land uses and desirable and cycle-convenient destinations. Paris does very well here: 5 of 5. 3. % city easily cyclable (mainly topography): ca. 90% (my personal estimate, to be cross checked with more informed sources) So call it between 4 and 5. 4. Cyclable days /year: ca. 90% (personal estimate), ditto, between 4 and 5. 5. Cycle paths, protected space: 370 (planned to 500 kms). I?d give it something between 3 and 5. (But that said it?s the kind of situation that most North American cities can for now only dream about) 6. Vandalism/public facilities: Not too bad, with some exceptions in troubled areas. Let me go for 3+ for now, and we will know a lot more about it after a year of Velib?. 7. Public information program: Must be on continuing basis. Aimed at improving skill levels of cyclists, motorists, truckers, transit ? and pedestrians ? to behave positively in a more complex, tighter multimodal mobility environment. Guessing 2 out of 5. 8. Image/cool: t a necessary condition of success. The image of cycling, long poor, has gone way upbeat in the last few years. I?d say we are at 3 moving toward 4. If your city does pretty well in these six areas (and let me know if anything here is missing or wrong), then you will probably do well to have a closer look. But before you rush off, you may want to have a look at the following additional points which while they have their main relevance in terms of cycling programs of all sorts, are important to keep in your sites as you plan, implement and maintain you public bike program. III. Other important cycling success points, criteria: 1. Transit system coverage: Excellent/dense. (Sure this is subjective, but I an neither selling nor abusing the city, so let?s try for 4.5 in this important bikeability context) 2. Cars: ca. 0.5 per household ? Nice. Maybe 3.5 and working on it. (Availability of carsharing might be another good car indicator. After all if you share you are not likely to own and that makes you a prime candidate for other ways for getting around in the city. However in Paris we are still in early days. But fast developing. 1.5 out of 5.) 3. Slow streets or zones: ?? kms. (got to find it) ? and expanding quite rapidly. 2 out of 5 for now, but fast gaining. 4. Driver skills: Gradually getting better as the density of cyclists increased, but still plenty room for improvement. At best 2 eventually going on 3. 5. Safe cycle parking: 29,000 places currently available and increasing steadily at about 1000/year. If you cannot leave your bike safely and near to your destination (schools, stations, work, shopping, leisure), you just won?t take it. Current supply may look ample, but with expansion of cycling supply is not keeping up with demand. Guessing it at 2.5 6. Cycle services: Purchase, repairs. Not too bad. I?d give it a 3. 7. Cycle clubs/voice: Strong/active, plugged in to policy. 3 close to 4 I would say, not least because of their role and performance in the Mobilien and Velib? projects) 8. Police on bikes (and skates) ?Great feedback mechanism for city. I? d say 3 going on 4. 9. Continuity: And this is the essential shared condition for success in all cases . We must never lose sight of is that for all this to work and for cycling to take its full place in our cities, everything on this list needs to be followed closely, executed and fine-tuned every day. Continuing of attention and effort is the key. Much like bringing up a family. After all, the city is our family IV. Selection of comments received since yesterday on this: From: Michael Koucky [ mailto:michael.koucky@koucky.se ] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:17 PM Subject: Re: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at .. Hello Eric The indicators look ok, what I?m missing though is an indicator for cycle parking facilities for comfortable and (reasonably) theft safe cycle parking. The lack of safe cycle parking is a major deterrent for cycling in many cities. Michael Koucky [ mailto:michael.koucky@koucky.se ] Koucky & Partners AB - http://www.koucky.se/ Consultants for Sustainable Development Arvid Hedvalls Backe 4 b SE-411 33 G?teborg Sweden Ph.: +46-31-20 76 83 Cell: +46-702-10 12 17 --------------------------------------------- From: Saskia [ mailto:snmhermans@hotmail.com ] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:10 PM Subject: Re: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . . . Hello Eric, Thank you for your inspiring mail! I would like to react on your bikeability indicators, as a Dutch urban designer specialized on cycling and cycling infrastructure. 1. City size and density: In the Netherlands we reckon that medium sized towns and cities ( 50.000 to 200.000 people) are more bikeable than big cities. In big cities the urban transport tends to get that well that it becomes a serious competitor for cycling (which means less cyclists, which often leads to less infrastructure etc). In that respect I would give Paris a 3 to 4. The same holds good for density I guess, as soon as a city is dense enough public transport can flourish and people can "avoid" cycling. 2. Cars: Nice indicator but what about bicycles?? In Holland as a whole we do have more bicycles (almost 20 Million) then people ( 17 Million), and about 7.2 Million cars. In terms of households in Holland we do have 77.3% with a car, but we do cycle a lot more than the average Parisian. 3. Transit system coverage: If you mean public transport in Paris it certainly is a 5! But like I said, public transport is a competitor to cycling so should you give it a 5 in this context as adding to bikeability? 4. Kms of cycle path, protected space: Important BUT let's not forget that every trip has a starting point and a destination. If there are no parking facilities they are of little use. The chain is as strong as the weakest part! So I would like to add Bicycle Parking facilities as an indicator, both at home and at destination points (at schools, stations, at work, shops etc). In Holland 45% of the people sometimes do not use their bike because they are afraid it will be stolen. 5. Slow streets or zones: maybe to take together with the km of cycle paths? On the following six points I would say that you know Paris better then I do. They seem reasonable indicators to me 1. % city area easily cyclable: 2. Cyclable days /year: ca. 90% (personal estimate), ditto, between 4 and 5. 3. Cycle clubs/voice: Strong/active, plugged in to policy. 3 close to 4 I would say, not least because of their role and performance in the Mobilien and Velib? projects) 4. Vandalism/public facilities: Not too bad, with some clear exceptions in troubled areas. Let me go for 3+ for now, and we will know a lot more about it after a year of the Velib?. 5. Driver skills: Gradually getting better as the density of cyclists increased, but still plenty room for improvement. At best 2-3. 6. Police on bikes (and skates) ? Yes, and a great feedback mechanism for the city. I?d say 3 going on 4. An other point to add might be cycle services. In the south of France where I live it is difficult to find a place where you can buy a decent bike, let alone have it repaired or get spare parts. This discourages people to invest in cycling here. You have to be part of an in-crowd to be able to find the right places, if they exist at all. Just think of cycling as of car driving; without parking facilities or mechanics you would not use your car either. A last indicator to add might be Sexiness of cycling or Image if you like. Again, cars are a lot about image and status, so is clothing and your address or house. It is not so different for bicycles. In Holland we do have several ministers that do cycle to work, five generations of Royalty by bike. At the Eurotop in Amsterdam Wim Kok, then our Prime minister, gave away bikes to Tony Blair, Chirac, etc in Amsterdam. The picture went all over the world. The sales of bikes had been stagnating for a long time in the 70 and 80, but began to pick up when you finally could choose between more models, notable the all terrain bike, and between more colours then black, brown and blue. As long as cycling is seen as a poor mans solution to travel, the great masses will not be attracted to it. You are all welcome to comment on my reaction, Saskia Hermans --------------------------------------------- From: Andy Clarke [ mailto:Andy@bikeleague.org ] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 4:09 PM Subject: RE: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . Eric et al Yes, I read the report you sent a week or so ago and understood the goals ? and I agree that it will be important for cities to have a few key indicators in place for a city bike program to work well. I have always had the same thought in relation to TravelSmart or inidividualized marketing programs ? there are a lot of cities in the US where such a program would be a disaster because there just isn?t the infrastructure (transit, bike lanes and trails, even sidewalks) to make it work. But equally there are some where it would work well. In the US I think one of the key factors for city bikes is having a well defined geographic area that is intuitive and well-engrained already in people?s minds. Our metro areas are so spread out a system for the DC metro area, for example, would be incredibly hard ? but a system might work in the Mall area or Monumental Core, or Old Town Alexandria, provided the boundaries are well established and easy to identify or know. European cities are typically so much better defined with a real edge to them. Maybe these existing tools will be of some assistance to you: 1. Bikeability checklist. Pretty basic, but a good start and great for getting people to do self-assessments of their community or neighborhood. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/cps/checklist.cfm 2. Bicycle Friendly Community program (US version) ? more detailed survey with about 75 questions spread over engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement and evaluation topics. http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/communities/ 3. Bicycle Friendly Community program (European version) ? self assessment tool for cities focused on planning and policy elements. http://www.goudappelcoffeng.nl/Velo/InfoIndex.php 4. BFC Action Plan ? a more political statement with ten key elements outlined. http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/symp_actionplan.htm Andy Clarke --------------------------------------------- On Behalf Of Chris Bradshaw Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 5:16 PM Subject: Local cycling environment indicators: Let's have a look at . . . Eric, > Bikeability indicators - Quick introduction: Since I don't think we are leaders in this field, I think it would be useful to look at the 'bikeability' scales that have already been developed, both to get ideas and perhaps to see if we might wholly import. * http://www.velomondial.net/ has a four-level system -- based more on municipal policy than on on-the-ground results -- for "bicycle friendliness". They also have an on-line "city characteristics questionnaire" that cities can fill in. They also discuss a concept called 'car-sparse areas.' * www.bicyclinginfo.org/de is a site of the Washington DC-based National Center for Bicycling and Walking. It uses the term "bicyclability" and has an equal interest in walking (although the group started out as a cycling org.). * http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/ is the site of the League of American Biocyclists (was League of Am. Wheelmen). It has an award program for qualifying Am. cities. > Parking I find bike parking missing from your list. How much? How do bylaws support it? > City size/density: Size is not as important as density, but to keep trips short (to bicycle distances, without the cyclist, as you point out, having to be an 'enthusiast'), land use is also a factor. Are neighbourhood retail sectors strong? And are such neighbourhoods 'complete'? (as in do they have a full set of destinations to support living on at least a daily-weekly scale? This implies a planning process that is pro-active, such at as property becomes available locally, first consideration is given to what local area _needs_ as to what land use should be chosen to locate there) Chris Bradshaw Ottawa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070606/b97b6a2c/attachment.html From eric.britton at free.fr Thu Jun 7 15:58:19 2007 From: eric.britton at free.fr (Eric Britton (Fr)) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:58:19 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Graz 30/50 speed limit etc and cycling Message-ID: From: Michael Yeates [mailto:michael@yeatesit.biz] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 2:39 AM To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups. com RE: Local cycling environment indicators: More on ... Following my comments about slower speeds and in particular reference to Graz, I have done a GOOGLE using < Graz 30km/h > . There is a lot there including some rather big MB files ... too big for my access account. However I selected a few references (including one of mine as it turned out) to give a flavour of the support for the ideas being implemented in Graz. I must say I am delighted to find that Graz is still experimenting (trialling? demonstrating? developing? "reinventing"?) in "integrated transport policy". If I recall correctly, this is the term in English that describes/translates one of those wonderful Austro-German combined words that is used in the Graz policy and promotional material. I have also emailed Prof Sammer to see if he has papers available in e-format that I might distribute. regards Michael Yeates SLOW DOWN! NOW! A 20-km/h speed limit reduction makes a big difference: fewer and less serious accidents happen. Lower speed means less traffic needs less space and causes less noise: it improves the quality and livability of urban space. A lower general speed encourages walking and cycling, and thus supports an active and healthy lifestyle.The European Cycling Federation (ECF) strongly recommends the introduction of 30 km/h as a general speed limit for all built up areas. 50 is out The general urban speed limit of 50 or 60 km/h, introduced in most European countries in the fifties and sixties, is no longer socially acceptable. International experience shows that an urban speed limit of 30km/h is not only better for road safety and noise, but also gives smoother traffic flow and improves the quality of urban life. Slow is in Lower speeds have a great positive impact on road safety. While collisions between cars and unprotected road users will result in at least 40% fatalities at 50km/h, this falls to only 5% at 30km/h, and injuries are significantly less serious. Positive experience over 30 years During the last 30 years, experiments and experiences with 30 and 40km/h zones have proven the numerous benefits of lower speeds in many European countries. While the increase in driving time is hardly noticeable, lower speeds bring a significant improvement in road conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. International studies have shown that between 80 and 90% of the urban road network is suited for reduced speed. This comprises roads in residential areas as well as shopping areas. Only main arteries and road without buildings at the roadside are suitable for 50km/h. For this reason it would be simpler and more efficient to introduce30km/h as a general speed limit in urban areas instead of continuing to establish single 30km/h islands. Successful: 30 km/h as urban speed limit . Since Graz Austria, introduced a general speed limit of 30 km/h for all but the major roads (where 50km/h remained) in 1992, the number of accidents has decreased by 15%. Over 75% of the road network are subject to the lower speed. 150,000 less injuries The consequences of a general 30km/h speed limit in urban areas can be illustrated by a few accident figures. The 21 European countries recorded in the IRTAD (OECD) database suffered about 20,000 fatal and almost 1,000,000 injury accidents on roads in urban areas in 1998. A 15% saving -like in Graz- would save150, 000 injury accidents-each year. Increased cycle use Positive effects on noise and a general improvement of the Speed makes the difference: A cyclist or pedestrian being hit by a car with speed 60km/h is like throwing oneself out a window from the fifth floor. Livability of cities is a bonus, on top of the accident savings. Especially for cyclists, car speeds have a great effect not only on actual but also on the perceived safety. Using a bicycle under a 30km/h is much more pleasant than at 50km/h. Such a change would encourage walking and cycling, which would mean more physical exercise and better long-term public health.. Encourage healthy lifestyles A general 30km/h limit is completely in line with the WHO Charter on transport, environment and health, signed by European ministers in June 1999. In this charter the ministers have committed themselves to create supportive conditions That permit and stimulate a substantial increase in the number of short trips undertaken by these physically active modes of transport (walking and cycling). The introduction of 30km/h as the general speed limit for built-up areas would contribute to these targets and would thus be a good step in the right direction. Overwhelming benefits The evidence and positive experiences with 30km/h as a general speed limit in urban areas are so convincing that there is no reason to wait any longer. says Horst Hahn Klockner, ECF president. Via its member organizations, ECF asks the national governments in Europe to introduce 30km/h as the general urban speed. We also ask the European Commission to establish this as one of its road safety priorities And to recommend it to the member states. Thomas King , Ursula Lethner European Cyclist 3.2000 g [ the above was sourced from http://home.connect.ie/dcc/newsltrs/spokes2001/cs-autumn2001.doc ] Also you can see how a city with up to 70% or more of its streets and roads having a 30km/h speed limit can then encourage other 'integrated' changes such as increasing other-than-car travel to school (and elsewhere) and use of much smaller, lighter and less environmentally damaging cars as shown in http://www.stockholm.se/pages/352574/Trendsetter_pres_english.pdf also see http://www.pimms-eu.org/downloads/newsletters/PIMMS_newsletter_2.pdf also http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/trs/roadsafety/sub15.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070607/4133ce2f/attachment.html From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Jun 7 18:13:48 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:13:48 +0200 Subject: [sustran] Re: Graz 30/50 speed limit etc and cycling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4667CC4C.1040409@greenidea.info> Hi, Just a little information so no one starts making generalisations about social acceptability of 50km/h speed limits in Europe... In cities in the new EU states a 50km/h limit is still socially acceptable but of course not obeyed. One part of one district in Prague - perhaps not coincidentally the first one with a shared bike system - has a 40km/h limit but the only reason it has it is because it has no main transit roads, only very local streets. No transit streets - and these might still just be two lane roads going through neighbourhoods with no signals, no stop signs - are allowed to have less than a 50km/h limit. But the most interesting thing is that the traffic safety division of the Ministry of Transport recently STOLE the main idea of recent campaigns in Germany to change speeds form 50 to 30... and used its aesthetics, comparisons of risks and so on to compare 60km/h (the old speed limit many years ago) to 50km/h. - T Eric Britton (Fr) wrote: > > *From:* Michael Yeates [mailto:michael@yeatesit.biz] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 07, 2007 2:39 AM > *To:* NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups. com > > > * > RE: Local cycling environment indicators: More on ... * > > > *Following my comments about slower speeds and in particular > reference to Graz, I have done a GOOGLE using < Graz 30km/h > . > There is a lot there including some rather big MB files ... too big > for my access account. > > However I selected a few references (including one of mine as it > turned out) to give a flavour of the support for the ideas being > implemented in Graz. > > I must say I am delighted to find that Graz is still experimenting > (trialling? demonstrating? developing? "reinventing"?) in > "integrated transport policy". > > If I recall correctly, this is the term in English that > describes/translates one of those wonderful Austro-German combined > words that is used in the Graz policy and promotional material.* > > I have also emailed Prof Sammer to see if he has papers available in > e-format that I might distribute. > > regards > > Michael Yeates > > SLOW DOWN! NOW! > > *A 20-km/h speed limit reduction makes a big > difference: fewer and less serious accidents happen. > *Lower speed means less traffic needs less space and causes less > noise: it improves the quality and livability of urban space. A lower > general speed encourages walking and cycling, and thus supports an > active and healthy lifestyle.The European Cycling Federation (ECF) > strongly recommends the introduction of 30 km/h as a general speed > limit for all built up areas. > *50 is out > *The general urban speed limit of 50 or 60 km/h, introduced in most > European countries in the fifties and sixties, is no longer socially > acceptable. International experience shows > that an urban speed limit of 30km/h is not only better for road safety > and noise, but also gives smoother traffic flow and improves the > quality of urban life. > > > *Slow is in* > > Lower speeds have a great positive impact on road safety. While > collisions between cars and unprotected road users will result in at > least 40% fatalities at 50km/h, this falls to only 5% at 30km/h, and > injuries are significantly less serious. > > > *Positive experience over 30 years* > > During the last 30 years, experiments and experiences with 30 and > 40km/h zones have proven the numerous benefits of lower speeds in many > European countries. While the increase in driving time is hardly > noticeable, lower speeds bring a significant improvement in road > conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. International studies have > shown that between 80 and 90% of the urban road network is suited for > reduced speed. This comprises roads in residential areas as well as > shopping areas. Only main arteries and road without buildings at the > roadside are suitable for 50km/h. For this reason it would be simpler > and more efficient to introduce30km/h as a general speed limit in > urban areas instead of continuing to establish single 30km/h islands. > > > *Successful: 30 km/h as urban speed limit* > > . Since Graz Austria, introduced a general speed limit of 30 km/h for > all but the major roads (where 50km/h remained) in 1992, the number of > accidents has decreased by 15%. > Over 75% of the road network are subject to the lower speed. > > *150,000 less injuries > *The consequences of a general 30km/h speed limit in urban areas can > be illustrated by a few accident figures. The 21 European countries > recorded in the IRTAD (OECD) database > suffered about 20,000 fatal and almost 1,000,000 injury accidents on > roads in urban areas in 1998. A 15% saving -like in Graz- would > save150, 000 injury accidents-each year. > > > *Increased cycle use* > > Positive effects on noise and a general improvement of the Speed > makes the difference: A cyclist or pedestrian being > hit by a car with speed 60km/h is like throwing oneself out a window > from the fifth floor. > Livability of cities is a bonus, on top of the accident savings. > Especially for cyclists, car speeds have a great effect not only on > actual but also on the perceived safety. Using a bicycle > under a 30km/h is much more pleasant than at 50km/h. Such a change > would encourage walking and cycling, which would mean more physical > exercise and better long-term public health.. > > > *Encourage healthy lifestyles* > > A general 30km/h limit is completely in line with the WHO Charter on > transport, environment and health, signed by > European ministers in June 1999. In this charter the ministers have > committed themselves to create supportive conditions > That permit and stimulate a substantial increase in the number of > short trips undertaken by these physically active modes of > transport (walking and cycling). The introduction of 30km/h as the > general speed limit for built-up areas would contribute to these > targets and would thus be a good step in the right direction. > > > *Overwhelming benefits* > > **The evidence and positive experiences with 30km/h as a general > speed limit in urban areas are so convincing that there is no reason > to wait any longer. says Horst Hahn Klockner, ECF president. Via > its member organizations, > ECF asks the national governments in Europe to introduce 30km/h as the > general urban speed. We also ask the European Commission to establish > this as one of its road safety priorities > And to recommend it to the member states. > > Thomas King , Ursula Lethner > *European Cyclist 3.2000 > g > * [ the above was sourced from* > *http://home.connect.ie/dcc/newsltrs/spokes2001/cs-autumn2001.doc ] > > > Also you can see how a city with up to 70% or more of its streets and > roads having a 30km/h speed limit can then encourage other > 'integrated' changes such as increasing other-than-car travel to > school (and elsewhere) and use of much smaller, lighter and less > environmentally damaging cars as shown in > http://www.stockholm.se/pages/352574/Trendsetter_pres_english.pdf > > also see > http://www.pimms-eu.org/downloads/newsletters/PIMMS_newsletter_2.pdf > > also http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/trs/roadsafety/sub15.pdf > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Jun 7 18:43:24 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:43:24 +0200 Subject: [sustran] European Parliament considers health warning for automobile adverts... Message-ID: <4667D33C.3030600@greenidea.info> Hi, This has been a topic on some of these lists before so thought you might be interested... "...The report that the parliament will vote on also calls for a big change in the way cars are advertised. A fifth of ads would have to be given over to a variation on the health warning on cigarette packets. It wouldn't actually point out the dangers of CO2 emission, but would highlight the car's fuel efficiency (or lack of it) and its CO2 emissions. It would also be made illegal for adverts to boast about cars being able to go faster than the national speed limit, although not being an avid reader of car ads I don't know whether they really do this on a regular basis anyway...." ... It seems that they will need more warnings, just to keep things... uh... fresh, so we ought to monitor this and give some suggestions... - T -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From edelman at greenidea.info Thu Jun 7 18:48:56 2007 From: edelman at greenidea.info (Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:48:56 +0200 Subject: [sustran] ADDENDUM Re: European Parliament considers health warning... Message-ID: <4667D488.2010601@greenidea.info> That Europe Diary webpage gets updated every Thursday so if you read this on or after 14.6 please see listing of previous topics at top right... the car story is entry from 7.6. - T -- -------------------------------------------- Todd Edelman Director Green Idea Factory Korunn? 72 CZ-10100 Praha 10 Czech Republic ++420 605 915 970 ++420 222 517 832 Skype: toddedelman edelman@greenidea.info Green Idea Factory, a member of World Carfree Network www.worldcarfree.net From cherry at berkeley.edu Fri Jun 8 02:57:06 2007 From: cherry at berkeley.edu (Chris Cherry) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:57:06 -0700 Subject: [sustran] Electric Bike Policy in China-Dissertation Message-ID: <002001c7a92d$44acb460$ce061d20$@edu> Hello, For those of you interested in some policy analysis of electric bikes in China, take a look at my recently completed PhD dissertation. I look at some of the net environmental, safety and mobility/accessibility impacts of electric bikes and found that overall, they provide huge mobility gains at a somewhat low safety and environmental cost, especially compared to some of the less sustainable modes we can think of. If you're really interested, read the whole thing. The best way to get the idea is to read the last two chapters (case studies and conclusion). The big problem with these bikes is the huge amount of lead (Pb) being introduced into the environment and to some environmental policy makers and researchers, this should be a deal breaker. There are some more sustainable battery technologies that can be employed, but some economic incentive needs to be put in place to encourage their adoption. I am planning on following up this work with some more environmental, safety and traffic impact analyses in the future. Here is the link to my dissertation: http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~cherry/Publications/full_dissertation-committee_ final-2007.pdf Comments are appreciated. Chris Cherry Soon to be Assistant Professor Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Tennessee-Knoxville 223 Perkins Hall Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-2010 cherry@utk.edu cherry@berkeley.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20070607/17cc3a3a/attachment.html From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 04:09:11 2007 From: carlosfpardo at gmail.com (Carlos F. Pardo) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:09:11 -0500 Subject: [sustran] Re: On the politics of transportation -- and breaking gridlock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466857D7.2070407@gmail.com> Joao's email is interesting. If I can use the black hat for a moment, I'd say that Joao is right but not 100%. Yes, political will is one of the great requirements of successful improvements in urban transport for a city. However, I'm not sure if it's the real first step, rather than local technical knowledge. For example, sometimes (seldom, but sometimes) you'll see a city where there is all the political will to improve the transport situation, but the technical expertise is not there and, in the rush to have something done to "improve" (and for the political figure to show that he or she has done something), you get pretty mediocre results which may end up worsening the situation. The question is how to arrive at that political will. Some of us working on this have found that direct contact with policymakers with visual products (photos, videos) and key stats are useful to make politicians change their minds, at least in principle. High-ranking figures and institutions that present this information (e.g. the "Pe?alosa effect") are also very (very very very!) effective. But then again, you need to also find a way to give the expertise to the locals. Otherwise, 80% of the budget will go to expensive consultants. Best regards, Carlos F. Pardo Coordinador de Proyecto- Project Coordinator GTZ - Proyecto de Transporte Sostenible (SUTP, SUTP-LAC) Cl 93A # 14-17 of 708 Bogot? D.C., Colombia Tel/fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662 carlos.pardo@sutp.org www.sutp.org Eric Britton (Commons) wrote: > (The following note came in this morning from Jo?o Lacerda of Transporte > Ativo n Rio de Janeiro. I am sure that these are familiar themes to many of > you out there, but it is important that we keep them in mind. Eric > Britton.) > > Dear Eric, > > First of all thanks for your help concerning the Clinton Foundation > activities here in Rio. But reading your draft about Paris and having > Rio?s daily life (concerning mostly transportation) I see so much room > for improvement here. The biggest problem is that we lack the most > needed leadership to put simple and effective matters into place. > > Rio?s inhabitants (the Cariocas) live quite frightened and the car > represents a lot. If I?m not mistaken, we are second to S?o Paulo in the > biggest fleet of bullet proof cars. Those who can, protect themselves > more and more, closing their eyes to city needs. With such a scared > elite it is quite hard, politically, to implement the needed change in > behavior. From what I can see, city planners here lack the daily > knowledge of how the city works for those who don?t use the private car. > In an informal conversation I once had with Enrique Pe?alosa he told me > the hardest part about implementing the BRT system in Bogot? was dealing > with private bus owners. The complexity here is close to that, we have > fewer bus operators, but still a very powerful group. > > Despite the difficulties, I tend to believe that, with political will, > improvements in mega cities from the south are capable of reaching quite > big goals. > > With all that in mind, I leave you a question that I can?t see any > simple answer. How to build political will for the New Mobility? In our > relationship with the city administration they seldom look down at our > ideas for improvements in bicycle mobility, but it always seem to take > anywhere from 2 to 10 years for ideas to become reality. Are there any > good examples scattered around of "pressure in the fast lane" for better > mobility in any world city? > > Last but not least, in case you might want to work on your Portuguese > reading skills, one of Transporte Ativo?s members has recently made a > brief cycling planning manual for his hometown. > http://blog.transporteativo.org.br/2007/05/30/projeto-cicloviario/ or > the full document in > http://www.ta.org.br/site/banco/7manuais/arquivos3/plan_ciclo_moc.pdf > > Sorry for the quite long email. And if there is any objective need you > think I might help, just let me know. > > Best Regards, > > Jo?o Guilherme Lacerda > ---------------------- > Transporte Ativo - www.ta.org.br > Membro do F?rum Brasileiro de Mobilidade por Bicicleta > Pr?mio ANTP-Abradibi de Est?mulo ao Uso da Bicicleta 2005 > Rio de Janeiro - Brasil > +55 (21) 9588 5618 > Skype: Dysprosio > > -------------------------------------------------------- > IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGROUPS. > > Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroups version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sustran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apologies for the confusing arrangement. > > ================================================================ > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). > > From carlosfpardo at gmail.com Fri Jun 8 04:09