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

[Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory]

Hi Eric,

Not sure how to word it exactly but IF the "Billboards for Bicycles" 
scheme is used the content of the advertisements has to not be damaging 
to sustainable transport. This essentially means no petroleum or private 
car ads.

But of course that means that bike people or whatever sell out other 
causes as they as relate to other possible advertisers.

So basically this whole funding model is TOTALLY ROTTEN AT A 
FOUNDATIONAL LEVEL.

***

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/edelman/sets/72157602171242536/>

- T

eric.britton wrote:
>
> 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?
>


-- 
--------------------------------------------

Todd Edelman
Director
Green Idea Factory

Korunní 72
CZ-10100 Praha 10
Czech Republic

Skype: toddedelman
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832

edelman at greenidea.eu
http://greenideafactory.blogspot.com/
www.flickr.com/photos/edelman

Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
www.worldcarfree.net