[sustran] Summary of responses: Traffic pyramid - a discussion for Colombian urban transport policy

[Carlosfelipe Pardo]

Dear all,

As a response to my email below requesting feedback on the issue of the
priority of public transport and (or vs?) non-motorized transport (see
original message below), I have received various responses that have been
most useful to give more grounding to the debate (most of them individually
and not sent to the sustran listgroup). The main issues that I've found
were the following (the text below is a translation of my summary as sent
to government):

- Both public and non-motorized transport are relevant modes to be promoted
and should be prioritary.
- The interaction of public transport and non-motorized transport is
fundamental, in particular because all trips have a non-motorized component
and, as such, make public transport trips possible (and in the case of
bicycles, expand its coverage and make it more flexible).
- There is not much support between the different experts to the idea that
public transport is more accessible (or affordable) than non motorized
transport
- Bicycles as a transport mode are relevant (and sometimes more efficient)
for trips up to 7 kilometers (some indicated 5 kilometers as the threshold
for bicycle use).

Any further inputs are most welcome, and it would be nice if this
discussion can continue!! Thanks again for everyone's interest.

Best regards,

Carlos.

On Thursday, 11 September 2014, Carlosfelipe Pardo <pardo at despacio.org>
wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> We (various Colombian "transport people") are in the process of supporting
> the Colombian Ministry of Transport in formulating a new national urban
> transport policy. To date, the policy had only been formulated for public
> transport (this is why we have 8 BRTs etc etc funded up to 70% by National
> government) but the aim is to include Non motorized transport and travel
> demand management measures as part of a broader policy. This is a pretty
> good opportunity to improve things, especially since many Colombian cities
> cannot get national funding for NMT improvements because there is no law to
> support such funding (this is a big problem for small cities that have
> short trips and no infrastructure for cycling nor money to build it, for
> example).
>
> However, we have come to a discussion where some of us propose that non
> motorized transport should have priority over other modes, and others
> strongly reject that idea because they say (and I quote) that "*public
> transport is the ONLY mode that youth, old, men and women, abled and
> disabled, rich and poor can use, and is therefore the mode that is
> accessible to all*" (caps in original!). I for one find this a bit
> troubling and do not think that it should be an assumption of a national
> policy of urban transport that tries to include more modes... am I wrong,
> did I understand the traffic pyramid differently from the way I should?
>
> I feel that I am pretty alone in this discussion (Colombia is a very
> pro-public transport country, but not-so when it comes to cycling as a
> national policy). I would very much appreciate if anyone can *send along
> arguments and hard data that can support that cycling is also very
> accessible and should be a prioritary mode*, not just in traffic
> crossings but in policy. Otherwise, we'll just have a transport policy that
> is the same as before.
>
>
> --
> Carlosfelipe Pardo | Director Ejecutivo | despacio
> pardo at despacio.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pardo at despacio.org');>
> Tel: (+571) 2484420  / Cel (+573) 21 343 3727
> despacio.org
>


-- 
Carlosfelipe Pardo | Director Ejecutivo | despacio
pardo at despacio.org
Tel: (+571) 2484420  / Cel (+573) 21 343 3727
despacio.org