[sustran] Re: anyone know anything about bike parking in buildings
regulations?
Carlosfelipe Pardo
carlosfpardo at gmail.com
Thu Nov 27 04:41:16 JST 2008
Hi Walter,
Really useful discussion. It would be great if TA sends any document =
they produce on this! In Bogot=E1, there are two regulations related to thi=
s:
1- Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial (Decreto 469 de 2003, art=EDculo 256) =
- the sort of master plan of city development, says the following =
textually (my translation):
" for every type of use, one bicycle parking space shall be provided for =
every two [automobile] parking spaces, and dimensions will be =
established by DAPD [local planning department], which will be placed =
within the private area under proper safety measures" (I hope it's =
understandable).
Please note that the above is only for constructions done from 2003, not =
earlier (that is, no "retroffiting" is expected). I am attaching the =
original text in Spanish.
2- Decreto 036 de 2004 (specific decree for bike parking): it's very =
ambiguous and pretty useless, but it states, more or less, that =
constructions on surface which are built for parking should have one car =
space fitted for bicycle parking, for every 10 car park spaces. If there =
are less than 120 car park spaces, it should have 12 car spaces fitted =
for bicycle parking. I am attaching the original decree.
Finally, on the issue of bringing bicycles into buildings, that's =
entirely up to the building management... there's some colleagues in =
Bogot=E1 who have their office in a building where you have to carry your =
bike three floors up, because they won't let you use the car parking spaces!
If you ask me, the first regulation is the one to quote. Don't even =
mention the second one because it's too confusing.
All the best for TA on this.
Carlos.
Christof Hertel wrote:
> Hi Walter,
> ones again Berlin:
> http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/verkehr/radverkehr/fahrradparken/de=
/bln_bauordnung.shtml
> In new houses it is
> Parking facilities (locking possibility and safe to stand) for 2 bikes per
> flat, or 1 per 100squaremeter shopping-space.
>
> and see the box on page 21 in their guidebook, nearly any building has an
> specific number:
> http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/verkehr/radverkehr/fahrradparken/do=
wnload/leitfaden_fahrradparken.pdf
> greetings
> christof
>
> "As a partner in the EU funded project SpiCycles (Sustainable Planning and
> Innovation for Bicycles) Berlin takes part in a comprehensive programme
> focussed on the promotion of cycling, including the exchange of innovative
> ideas on the European level. The current handbook on the provision of
> bicycle parking facilities has been prepared within this overall
> framework.
> The handbook =84Bicycle Parking in Berlin addresses itself to public and
> private investors, architects and planners, real estate owners and housing
> administrators, shop keepers and employers, as well as to public bodies
> and institutions. In addition, to achieve good solutions for bicycle
> parking in collaboration with the owners of buildings and other
> responsible parties may also be of interest for the occupiers of rented
> housing, for shoppers, employees and users of public spaces and facilities
> generally."
>
>
> =
>> Hi Walter,
>>
>> I believe San Francisco has a regulation which requires buildings with
>> freight elevators to allow bikes.... and I think a related one which
>> mandates showers in new buildings and renovations.
>>
>> Andy?
>>
>> Also, I would suggest that the TA people contact the Durst organisation
>> about One Bryant, their new big high-profile midtown Manhattan "green"
>> office building which will have bike parking and no car parking.
>>
>> - T
>>
>> Zvi Leve wrote:
>> =
>>> Walter,
>>>
>>> The City of Montreal has recently updated their municipal
>>> by-laws<http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=3D2762,3101322&=
_dad=3Dportal&_schema=3DPORTAL>to
>>> include "provisions regarding parking requirements for bicycles upon
>>> the
>>> construction, extension or change of use of a building." There are also
>>> new
>>> by-laws concerning the *maximum* number of on-site parking
>>> spaces<http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=3D2762,3101308&_=
dad=3Dportal&_schema=3DPORTAL>which
>>> can be built with new developments!
>>>
>>> Both of these by-laws are applied at the 'Borough' level, which means
>>> that
>>> each sector of the city if free to apply their own standards.
>>>
>>> Still too early to know how much of an impact these by-laws will have.
>>> Montreal has always had relatively numbers of bicyclists, but this is
>>> primarily due to socio-economic factors (ie students, artists and other
>>> low
>>> income households), more than anything else. In recent years the number
>>> of
>>> cars on the island (of Montreal) has been going up quickly. An influx of
>>> (relatively) wealthier people to inner-core neighbourhoods, compounded
>>> with
>>> the vicious cycle of transit fare increases and service cuts, has been
>>> behind this increase.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Zvi
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Walter Hook <whook at itdp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> =
>>>> Does anyone know of cities with regulations that require commercial
>>>> and/or
>>>> residential buildings to allow people to bring bicycles into their
>>>> buildings
>>>> or provide some parking for them? TA is trying to introduce such a
>>>> bill in
>>>> New York City, and I am unaware of any precedent.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> walter
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=3Ditdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
>>>> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook
>>>> <sustran-discuss-bounces%2Bwhook>=3D
>>>> itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
>>>> Of Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 12:25 PM
>>>> To: Sustran Resource Centre
>>>> Subject: [sustran] Re: 'Get Visible' video - response to Todd
>>>>
>>>> Amy Walker/Momentum Magazine wrote:
>>>>
>>>> =
>>>>> Todd,
>>>>>
>>>>> The premise of the video is "if you want to be seen while riding at
>>>>> night, get some lights/reflectors on."
>>>>>
>>>>> There is absolutely no implied message of "you get what you deserve if
>>>>> you get hit" Ever. Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your interest - and happy riding!
>>>>>
>>>>> Amy
>>>>>
>>>>> =
>>>> Hi Amy,
>>>>
>>>> It is clear to me that any message of that sort was not intentional,
>>>> but
>>>> what the video showed was a level of illumination (technology) beyond
>>>> what is required, and so I would not be surprised if some people
>>>> interpreted it - even subconsciously - as a recommendation to take that
>>>> degree of action in regards to their own safety whilst cycling. Would
>>>> it
>>>> be possible to see if this is really the case?
>>>>
>>>> If the video was about a government health authority recommending
>>>> drinking a certain amount of water everyday, it could show people
>>>> having
>>>> water fights, going swimming, and so on. Fun imagery perhaps, and
>>>> appropriate to convey the importance of water. But not precise enough
>>>> for an actual regulation.
>>>>
>>>> Imagine the equivalent of "get some lights/reflectors on" directed
>>>> towards motorists in regards to the lighting or other critical safety
>>>> equipment in their vehicles. A message like that would not be taken
>>>> seriously. In addition, there may in fact be requirements for the
>>>> maximum illumination possible for motorised road vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> I am sure you understand how important imagery and text are in
>>>> delivering messages, especially those which can relate specifically to
>>>> a
>>>> road traffic regulation. So it seems like it would have been helpful to
>>>> at the very least make those regulations clear - and the importance of
>>>> following them - in a video like this, which I am also sure you could
>>>> have done in a very fun and non-preachy manner.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your hard work,
>>>> T
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory wrote:
>>>>
>>>> =
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I was clear - and sorry if I was not - that I think cyclists
>>>>>> should absolutely use the legal minimum. I was not recommending
>>>>>> invisibility. Wearing black is great if your bike is lit up according
>>>>>> to law. The issue about DRLs (daytime running lights) is like
>>>>>> everything beyond requirements proposed in the video (except the
>>>>>> shorts) a distraction figuratively and literally-speaking. Also, cars
>>>>>> are big, go fast, cant manouver or stop so quick... DRLs are a bad
>>>>>> analogy. On a dull, rainy winter afternoon cars need to slow down - a
>>>>>> lot! - and not have DRLs which make their drivers think they can go
>>>>>> as fast as before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, obviously in carfree cities bikes may only need front and rear
>>>>>> lights to be seen by pedestrians and none of the rest, so accepting
>>>>>> the additional reflectors etc. is already a concession to a failed
>>>>>> surface transport system. You did not respond to my thoughts about
>>>>>> something recommended - or what drivers like - becoming something
>>>>>> mandatory. Even without the unfortunate Darwin comment - the mostly
>>>>>> selfless act of choosing to ride a bike outweighs any
>>>>>> irresponsibility of not being lit up - I find it troubling that you
>>>>>> seem to think that others who are not lit beyond what is required and
>>>>>> are hit, etc. get what they deserve. In a much more gentle way that
>>>>>> is of course the main premise of the video.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - T
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Richings wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =
>>>>>>> Hi Todd
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not one of the makers of the video, but I do have a couple of
>>>>>>> seconds
>>>>>>> of face time in it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think that the message is confused at all. Visible is safer
>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>> invisible, and there are many ways to make yourself seen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a cyclist and driver, every time that I see (barely and usually
>>>>>>> at the
>>>>>>> last minute) a person riding a bike at night with no light nor
>>>>>>> reflective
>>>>>>> material, and often wearing dark clothes, I get cranky and wonder --
>>>>>>> WHY ??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aside from its Darwinian value in 'thinning the herd' of cyclists
>>>>>>> too dumb
>>>>>>> to survive, there is little to recommend invisibility at night.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the video gets even a few of those cyclists to change their ways,
>>>>>>> it will
>>>>>>> have done a useful job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Too much visibility? A bit hard to imagine in reality. Of course
>>>>>>> parts of
>>>>>>> the video are 'over the top'. We don't really expect people to wear
>>>>>>> brightly reflective shorts. And most wouldn't look nearly as good in
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> as the B:C:Clettes do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Beyond what you describe as the legal minimum, when I ride at night
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> would see:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A bright yellow jacket with retro-reflective strips on the front,
>>>>>>> back, and arms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A silver helmet with retro-reflective strips visible from all
>>>>>>> angles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On my recumbent bike, several retro-reflective strips on the frame,
>>>>>>> fenders, mirror backs, rear bag, and in some circumstances
>>>>>>> reflective
>>>>>>> material on the pole and body of a rear flag arrangement that rises
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> three feet above my head. I may also put a couple of small blinkies
>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>> the top of the pole.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Too much? Am I endangering other cyclists ? I don't think so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was a similar line of peculiar argument used to justify the
>>>>>>> odd
>>>>>>> approach that British cycling groups took in opposing daytime
>>>>>>> running lights
>>>>>>> for cars. Since the cars would be more visible, then cyclists and
>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>> will be comparatively less visible, so running lights should not be
>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As someone who lives in a country where such running lights have
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> standard for over 20 years, their contribution to safety vastly
>>>>>>> exceeds any
>>>>>>> drawbacks that they may have. Being able to see a car approaching on
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> rainy, dull, winter afternoon makes me safer. And of course those
>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>> lights very effectively 'light up' the retro-reflective strips that
>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>> cyclists have on their bikes and clothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many car drivers are notably inattentive, particular at night. If
>>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>> to have any chance of avoiding you, they first have to see you. And
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> course if I am to avoid other cyclists, I too have to see them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if a cyclist feels that is not enough, then a couple of
>>>>>>> inexpensive LED
>>>>>>> blinkies will make them considerably more visible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does this endanger cyclists who have no lights and minimal
>>>>>>> reflectors while
>>>>>>> riding a dark bicycle and wearing dark clothes? I don't think so -
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> really rests with them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly none of this changes the motorist's legal obligation to
>>>>>>> pay
>>>>>>> attention. But as a practical matter I would rather be bright and
>>>>>>> alive
>>>>>>> than minimally legal and dead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I would encourage everyone to watch the video and "Get Visible".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron Richings
>>>>>>> Vancouver, BC
>>>>>>> Canada
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Todd Edelman, Green Idea Factory [mailto:edelman at greenidea.eu]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all I sincerely admire all the work that went into making
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> video. It was cheesy on purpose, but that did not distract from the
>>>>>>> serious
>>>>>>> message. It only emphasized it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately the message is totally confused. One of the worst
>>>>>>> things that
>>>>>>> any cycling advocate or activist can do is support more illumination
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> what is required by law in most places (front white headlight and
>>>>>>> reflector,
>>>>>>> rear red taillight and reflector, reflectors on the pedals, and
>>>>>>> reflectors
>>>>>>> on the spokes or reflectorised sidewalls on the tyres -- practically
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> international standard if we just work at it a little harder). All
>>>>>>> of these
>>>>>>> extra decorations are lovely - though perhaps some of it is not
>>>>>>> particularly
>>>>>>> eco-friendly to manufacture - but by conflating what is generally
>>>>>>> required
>>>>>>> with all the other stuff the video proposes an unreasonable amount
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> responsibility for the cyclist for his or her own safety.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moreover, if one cyclist is "lit up like a Christmas tree" and
>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>> cyclist nearby is not, the latter becomes relatively invisible! This
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>> applies in general, over time, i.e. if a driver gets used to
>>>>>>> cyclists
>>>>>>> glowing like a discotheque then they will not see the others. Next
>>>>>>> thing that will happen is that wearing something like a reflective
>>>>>>> vest
>>>>>>> becomes required. It is similar to what happens with helmets, and
>>>>>>> some of us
>>>>>>> know too well how this can throw a spanner in the works of a
>>>>>>> proposed public
>>>>>>> bike programme (e.g. in Vancouver.).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, reflectors are not designed to help pedestrians see cyclists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone wants to protect themselves and their loved ones - I think
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> mandatory vests and helmets for children is worth considering - but
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> hyperillumination is selfish and just hurts the others who are not
>>>>>>> so lit
>>>>>>> up. Banning private cars in cities is the only sustainable solution,
>>>>>>> but the
>>>>>>> real issues of any car reformation programme include speed, the
>>>>>>> weight of
>>>>>>> cars, the hardness of bonnets and windscreens, and all the things a
>>>>>>> driver
>>>>>>> can legally do in their car while moving, to name just a few.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I propose that the fine folks in BC take their video off the web
>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>> the lessons it tries to teach kill or injure someone, and either do
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> featuring only what is required by law, or on the other side of the
>>>>>>> coin:
>>>>>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DgJenAE4e6EE> or
>>>>>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DvPzbc1uUcXA> and then we would ne=
ed
>>>>>>> not to
>>>>>>> change the lyrics too much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =
>>>> --
>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Todd Edelman
>>>> Green Idea Factory
>>>>
>>>> Urbanstr. 45
>>>> D-10967 Berlin
>>>> Germany
>>>>
>>>> Skype: toddedelman
>>>> Mobile: ++49 0162 814 4081
>>>> Home/Office: ++49 030 7554 0001
>>>>
>>>> edelman at greenidea.eu
>>>> www.greenidea.eu
>>>> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>>>>
>>>> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
>>>> www.worldcarfree.net
>>>>
>>>> CAR is over. If you want it.
>>>>
>>>> "Fort mit der Autostadt und was Neues hingebaut!"
>>>> - B. Brecht (with slight modification)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Todd Edelman
>>>> Green Idea Factory
>>>>
>>>> Urbanstr. 45
>>>> D-10967 Berlin
>>>> Germany
>>>>
>>>> Skype: toddedelman
>>>> Mobile: ++49 0162 814 4081
>>>> Home/Office: ++49 030 7554 0001
>>>>
>>>> edelman at greenidea.eu
>>>> www.greenidea.eu
>>>> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>>>>
>>>> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
>>>> www.worldcarfree.net
>>>>
>>>> CAR is over. If you want it.
>>>>
>>>> "Fort mit der Autostadt und was Neues hingebaut!"
>>>> - B. Brecht (with slight modification)
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>>>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
>>>> countries
>>>> (the 'Global South').
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>>>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing
>>>> countries
>>>> (the 'Global South').
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>> 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
>> Green Idea Factory
>>
>> Urbanstr. 45
>> D-10967 Berlin
>> Germany
>>
>> Skype: toddedelman
>> Mobile: ++49 0162 814 4081
>> Home/Office: ++49 030 7554 0001
>>
>> edelman at greenidea.eu
>> www.greenidea.eu
>> www.flickr.com/photos/edelman
>>
>> Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network
>> www.worldcarfree.net
>>
>> CAR is over. If you want it.
>>
>> "Fort mit der Autostadt und was Neues hingebaut!"
>> - B. Brecht (with slight modification)
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> 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.
>>
>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
>> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
>> (the 'Global South').
>>
>> =
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------- =
> IMPORTANT NOTE to everyone who gets sustran-discuss messages via YAHOOGRO=
UPS. =
>
> Please go to http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to j=
oin the real sustran-discuss and get full membership rights. The yahoogroup=
s version is only a mirror and 'members' there cannot post to the real sust=
ran-discuss (even if the yahoogroups site makes it seem like you can). Apol=
ogies for the confusing arrangement.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equit=
able and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'G=
lobal South'). =
>
> =
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BICI_PARQ_Decret036de2004_16_34_18.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35688 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20081126/1=
7c1fb6b/BICI_PARQ_Decret036de2004_16_34_18.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bicicletas parqueo POT.txt
Type: text/plain
Size: 343 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20081126/1=
7c1fb6b/bicicletasparqueoPOT.txt
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list