[sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] The future of "xTransit"

[Eric Britton]

Those are excellent cautionary remarks Michael. You ask why we say "Better,
Faster, Cheaper." Let me see if I can respond usefully. 

 

Well the starting point is that our present mainly car-based arrangements in
cities are our target. SO what we are looking for is . . 

 

1.     Better. We seem to have no problem with that one.



2.     Faster: Faster than getting stuck in traffic (bikes, buses and metros
are faster than cars in Paris today for many parts of the day, and we are
not the only ones). And faster to plan and bring on line than all those high
cost old technology approaches. (NB. It can be faster (trip time) and slowth
(time speeds) at the same time, let's not forget.)



3.     Cheaper: Cheaper for the citizen to get around in the city. Cheaper
for the city than those very high cost old mobility technology ( invariably
poorly adapted to the travel requirements of the 21st century) approaches

 

Again, just to recall the New Mobility strategy in its basic points:

 

1.     Reduce VM/KT radically.



2.     And do it fast:  (In months or a couple of years max. We cannot for
all the reasons you all know continue to wait. And wait)



3.     Improve and extend the 'bouquet" of new mobility services: We know
that a whole range of new service types are needed, that they need to be
complements, and that they need to offer better, faster and cheaper (sorry!)
transportation than the old car-intensive arrangements. 



4.     Make use of the "infrastructure joker": The transportation
infrastructures of our cities have for the most part been vastly overbuilt.
That just great, since it means that we can take over substantial portions
of the network for far more efficient modes. 



5.     Paying for it: No problem. We simply take over 50% of the transport
related budgets and use it to address to projects and reforms that are going
to make big differences with the next four to five (max.) years.



6.     Partnerships: This approach, because it is new and unfamiliar to most
people, is unlike to be understood the first times around. .Hence a major
education, , consultation and outreach efforts is going to be needed in each
place to make it work.  Old mobility was the terrain in which decisions were
made by transportation experts. New mobility is based on outreach and
harnessing the great strengths of the informed and educated populations of
our cities. Public/private/citizen partnerships. 

 

My point is that to move ahead with any of this in time to save the planet
and the life quality of the majority of the people who live in cities (no,
they are not happy car owner-drivers, get out there and count them) we need
to have a unified, coherent, and memorable strategy. The entire work and
purpose of the New Mobility Agenda is given over to trying to assist in just
this important task.

 

Eric Britton

 

 

 ____________________________

  Eric Britton 

      New Mobility Partnerships  

 

  8, rue Joseph Bara  -  75006 Paris France

  T: 331 4326 1323 - www.newmobility.org

 

 

On Behalf Of Michael Yeates
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2008 03:00
To: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com
Cc: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] The future of "xTransit"

 

Eric and all,

I suggest "we" should be extremely wary of anything "new" that also aims to
be "faster" see (c) below, now in red.

Several reasons ... here are three and no doubt there are heaps of
others.... 

1. the travel-distance-time problem if faster generates longer trips etc etc

2. "faster" ... or faster than ...?

3. faster usually results in negative outcomes, often very difficult to
predict, and even more difficult to prevent (cars in urban areas being an
example) 

 

There is a similar problem with "cheaper" in that it is actually far more
expensive to use a car than to use public transport now .. so how much more
cheap ...??? But others say public transport per capita carried is far more
expensive. And do we agree on what "costs" and "benefits" should be costed
and how to handle the assignment of cost value(s)?

On the other hand, "better" does not have this type of problem yet still
permits trade-offs ...! 

So should "faster" and "cheaper" simply be deleted?

Further, surely there are some existing "modes" that at least begin to
illustrate "xTransit" or what it is ...? Perhaps some of these examples
should be collected and explained.

Finally, is the problem really about creating something that is competitive
with car use such that it is then assumed car use will be or can be,
reduced? The risk here is that the car is apparently so enticing and
advantageous that perhaps it is unwise to emphasise this, implicitly or
explicitly.

This seems to leave us in the same bind as those who argue public transport
is not good enough because it involves say a walk of 200m ... or those who
don't want to cycle to a major public transport node 1km away ... so they
still choose to use a car ...! 

There also seems to be a multi-modal aspect missing from the concept???

It is from this perspective that I personally see improving the existing
options to cars as far "better" than trying to create new modes ..

MY.....................