[sustran] Re: Pollution in Paris... from Bicycles

[eric.britton]

Todd Edelman kindly brought this matter to your attention this morning. And
since I too have been concerned about it and certainly don’t wish this to
become the Achilles heel of an otherwise great city project, I thought you
might be interested to see how we are treating this in the Vélib’ portion of
the Greening of Paris report. I have cut this out for your convenience here,
but if you have not a yet made your way to the full report at
http://www.invent.newmobility.org (you’ll see it on the left menu) I hope
this may encourage you to do so. And as said many times, we are still most
interested in having your comments and critical remarks for improving.  Kind
thanks. Eric Britton

 

>From “Vélib’ - Paris City Bike Project (http://www.invent.newmobility.org)

 


The street advertising end of things (Oops!)


 

This is turning out to be one of the less comfortable building blocks of
this great project, and of which I think you as mayors and civic leaders
should be made fully aware. You risk possibly to find yourselves in s
similar situation in your city, so here is some early news to help you out. 

 

At present the contractual arrangements signed by the city of Paris provides
a Vélib’/street advertising package. The present contract runs for ten years
and has been signed by both the city and the contractor in full legal form.
It is a binding contract.

 

However we are seeing what I have to agree is a certain level of predatory
abuse by the advertizing-implementing  partner, in terms of (a) the number,
intrusiveness and  placement of the 1,628  panels to which they have been
given the right by the City of Paris, and (b) (and more surprisingly) the
very non-green energy consumption of the new, large and very intrusive
rolling displays.

 

Advance notice of this was provided by cycling, pedestrian and public space
groups in Lyons after the Vélo-v project had started to mature.  However
somehow this did not seem to make its way to the Paris team in time to
influence the contract signing with JCDecaux.  Let’s have a quick look at
this situation since it is an important point for your city if you are
considering this option.

 

Seen from the vantage of the advertiser, the contracting partner is just
doing its job: attracting the attention of the largest number of people to
the messages that their clients wish to bring to their attention.  That is
on the one side. The other is that there is a level of intrusiveness beyond
which people are no longer free to enjoy their city because of this plethora
of too many, to blatant  messages on too many sides. Then too there are
matters of public safety to be considered.

 

Here are some of the claims that are being made by cycling, public space and
environmental groups – all of whom, incidentally, are strong supporters of
the Vélib’’ project other than for this one bit of abuse:

 

*	Visual pollution – The large number of these panels, their placement
and their technology are creating  unnecessary intrusions and “noise” in the
daily lives of citizens
*	Size of the street displays – they are said to be too large and
obtrusive (the 
*	Number of these displays – The protesting groups claim that instead
of the targeted  20% reduction in street displays specified in the contract,
when you take into account the rolling displays, there is an increase of
“visual pollution” of some 220%
*	Their physical placement – A number of the panels have been placed
obtrusively on sidewalks , thus impeding pedestrian circulation and
visibility
*	Energy waste – One of the public interest groups has calculated that
one of those motorized displays consumes as much energy as an average
household uses for its domestic appliances.
*	Safety:  Certainly if you are a driver or cyclist driving by one of
these strategically place, very visible large signs and rotating displays,
you are inevitably forced to an extent to take your eye off the road. That
after all is why it is there. But this can be very hazardous as you can well
imagine 

 

Strategies:

 

This is a very complicated business, but in the last weeks we are seeing at
least a path for how Paris might be able to deal with this threat – and for
you possibly important sink it suggest some strategizing which you can
anticipate and  head off  this potential threat in advance.

 

The public interest groups here in Paris are taking several approaches about
which you may find it useful to know.  They are looking at three things:

 

1.	New and tighter guidelines for the displays
2.	The possibility of legally abrogating and/or changing the conditions
of the existing agreement.
3.	Separation of the public/private partnership into two contracts; one
for the service rendered (i.e., Vélib’) and the other for the advertizing
portion

 

Let’s look briefly at these in order. 

 

New display guidelines : More stringent limitations on size and placement.
Complete suppression of all rolling and illuminated displays, including any
that use sound or odors to attract public attention.. 

 

Contract challenges:  (There is no discernable trail indicating how this
might be accomplished at this point.)

 

Separation of the present agreement into two separate parts: one contract
which specifies the public service to be provided (Vélib’) with information
on costs and performance (The present contract since it subsumes both
aspects into a single global package is thus opaque in terms of costs (and
benefits) and does not permit the city to have full control of the economic
aspects of the public service.)  

 

Denis Baupin, the city counselor in charge of all transport projects in
Paris has recently called this the “municipalization” of  what should in his
view (and in mine) be a fully public service.  He has argued in recent
interviews that this will be important for other mayors in Paris as they
look to establish such service in their own communities. And who can
disagree with him on that?