Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Old Mobility rules - 5 kinds of cities

Expand Messages
  • Rory McMullan
    It also suffers from not having a cycle network of any note, meaning its still too dangerous to cycle for young kids or beginners. Without this basic
    Message 1 of 28 , Jan 31, 2007
      It also suffers from not having a cycle network of any note, meaning its still too dangerous to cycle for young kids or beginners. Without this basic infrastruture I would never be able to think of London as anything but an 'Old Mobility City'

      What London does have is Ken, a politician with the guts to build a real cycle network which could find room by taking space from the over accomodated motorised traffic.

      I wish Ken would stand for parliament and become the Secretary of State for Transport, then the whole of the UK might have a chance to catch up with London.

      Ian Wingrove <ian.wingrove@...> wrote:
       
      The criteria are getting tougher and more detailed - which is good. London suffers from being congested and very centralised, with a huge hinterland of the south east of England.
       
      -----Original Message-----
      From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Andrew Curry
      Sent: 29 January 2007 19:32
      To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
      Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Old Mobility rules - 5 kinds of cities

      Perhaps I'm not understanding some of the finer points of this, but I'm not sure why even central London would earn the '5' rating.

      There's still too many vehicles, generally travelling too fast on most roads to ensure any kind of community cohesion for people who live in the centre's residential areas. There is little effective regulation of vehicle behaviour through design or sanctions. There are few homezone type areas. It's still not a safe place generally for cyclists, nor for walkers (again partly because traffic speeds remain high except through limits imposed through congestion).

      I'd expect a city which was a '5' to meet all of the above descriptions. When London (this is only an example) reduces the Victoria Embankment to two lanes for powered vehicles, and passes the other side of the road over to cyclists and walkers, I think it might then be a sign that it is starting to move from 4 to 5.

      Until then it would be good to see a little less self-congratulation .

      Andrew

      On 26/01/07, Ian Wingrove < ian.wingrove@ london.gov. uk > wrote:
      Eric
      Those are good ground rules, but a bit more rigorous than the paragraph you originally put round and I think I would go with the Simon Norton view that central and Inner London might hit catagory 5, but outer London (where the vaste majority of Londoners live) is down at 3 or 4.
      The recent Transport for London strategy document on 2025, which will act as the basis of their bid for money from Government etc... has the following analysis and targets. With rising population they are expecting 4 million extra journeys by 2025. They aim to have 5 million journeys supported by public transport, walking and cycling. The result being that public transport modal share will increase from 37% to 41%, walking will rise slightly to 22% and cycling will have a 400% increase from a very low base to reach 5% of journeys. The bottom line is that car journeys will drop from 41% of modal share to 32%, or in real terms from 11m to 10m.
      The Climate Change Action Plan has the aim of reducing CO2 from all forms of transport in London by 25% by 2020 . This will be acheived despite a 50% growth in energy used by the tube system due to line upgrades. It is ambitious, but their policy unit have spent a year doing the figures and working out the most cost effective approaches. The plan will be formally launched in the next month.
      Most of the traffic reduction will come from the reallocation of road space over time - redesign of public spaces, new cycle/bus lanes and road pricing.
      The barriers to this are many and varied, but more work needs to be done on planning - although the density of housing has increased several fold, we need far more restictive parking standards. Also, the fares in London have been hiked up in order to help pay for all the new infrastructure. 
      Cheers
      IW
      -----Original Message-----
      From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Eric Britton (ChoiceMail)
      Sent: 25 January 2007 14:49
      To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
      Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Old Mobility rules - 5 kinds of cities

      I am delighted to hear Ian that London is a strong Category 5 candidate? I recall when I was lending a hand in the Contested Streets film out of New York last summer, that they were looking very favorably on your fair city as a possible example.
      But just to be quite sure on the ground rules in all this.
      Category 5:
      Verifiable progress for the full defined city area (we need to be very clear on this) in terms of:

      1.       An explicit announced and strongly defended and supported city policy to this effect.

      2.       Global decreases in overall vehicle traffic (not just here and there). I.e., for the city area as a whole

      3.       Corresponding area-wide CO2 decreases (though to measure but there are ways)

      4.       Significant shifts from single occupancy (or thereabouts) car trips anywhere in the city area.

      5.       Significant tightening of road space available for moving and stationary cars

      6.       No quality sacrifices in "mobility for all" in terms of trip availability, cost and convenience for

      It may be that the first three on this list are all we need to do this job, but let me post this as a challenge draft and see what we can do with it.
      I am eager to hear what others who know your city well have to say. I think this could prove a lively and creative exercise.
      Eric Britton

       
      GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY
      EMAIL NOTICE:
      The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp



      --
      email from Andrew Curry

       
      GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY
      EMAIL NOTICE:
      The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp


      What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.

    • On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
      On Behalf Of Eric Bruun Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 1:33 AM Also, don t forget that the avialable rights-of-way and existing infrastructure have a lot to
      Message 2 of 28 , Jan 31, 2007

        On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
        Sent:
        Thursday, February 01, 2007 1:33 AM
         

        Also, don't forget that the avialable rights-of-way and existing infrastructure have a lot to do with

        how attractive various options might be. Cities never start with a clean slate.

         

        Eric Bruun

      • ann_hackett
        Can New Mobility achieve Lots Less Cars by simulating CarFree Days using the following 3 R s to reach a catagory 5? Reduce parking Replace
        Message 3 of 28 , Feb 4, 2007
          Can New Mobility achieve Lots Less Cars by simulating CarFree Days
          using the following 3 R's to reach a catagory 5?

          Reduce parking
          Replace xTransit
          Reallocate Cycle networks

          Ann

          --- In NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, Rory McMullan <roryer@...> wrote:
          >
          > It also suffers from not having a cycle network of any note, meaning
          its still too dangerous to cycle for young kids or beginners. Without
          this basic infrastruture I would never be able to think of London as
          anything but an 'Old Mobility City'
          >
          > What London does have is Ken, a politician with the guts to build a
          real cycle network which could find room by taking space from the over
          accomodated motorised traffic.
          >
          > I wish Ken would stand for parliament and become the Secretary of
          State for Transport, then the whole of the UK might have a chance to
          catch up with London.
          >
          > Ian Wingrove <ian.wingrove@...> wrote:

          >
          > The criteria are getting tougher and more detailed - which is
          good. London suffers from being congested and very centralised, with
          a huge hinterland of the south east of England.
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Curry
          > Sent: 29 January 2007 19:32
          > To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Old Mobility rules - 5 kinds of cities
          >
          >
          > Perhaps I'm not understanding some of the finer points of
          this, but I'm not sure why even central London would earn the '5'
          rating.
          >
          > There's still too many vehicles, generally travelling too fast on
          most roads to ensure any kind of community cohesion for people who
          live in the centre's residential areas. There is little effective
          regulation of vehicle behaviour through design or sanctions. There
          are few homezone type areas. It's still not a safe place generally
          for cyclists, nor for walkers (again partly because traffic speeds
          remain high except through limits imposed through congestion).
          >
          > I'd expect a city which was a '5' to meet all of the above
          descriptions. When London (this is only an example) reduces the
          Victoria Embankment to two lanes for powered vehicles, and passes
          the other side of the road over to cyclists and walkers, I think it
          might then be a sign that it is starting to move from 4 to 5.
          >
          > Until then it would be good to see a little less self-congratulation.
          >
          > Andrew
          >
          >
          > On 26/01/07, Ian Wingrove < ian.wingrove@...> wrote:

          > Eric
          >
          > Those are good ground rules, but a bit more rigorous than
          the paragraph you originally put round and I think I would go
          with the Simon Norton view that central and Inner London might
          hit catagory 5, but outer London (where the vaste majority of
          Londoners live) is down at 3 or 4.
          >
          > The recent Transport for London strategy document on 2025,
          which will act as the basis of their bid for money from
          Government etc... has the following analysis and targets. With
          rising population they are expecting 4 million extra journeys by
          2025. They aim to have 5 million journeys supported by public
          transport, walking and cycling. The result being that public
          transport modal share will increase from 37% to 41%, walking will rise
          slightly to 22% and cycling will have a 400% increase from a very
          low base to reach 5% of journeys. The bottom line is that car
          journeys will drop from 41% of modal share to 32%, or in real
          terms from 11m to 10m.
          >
          > The Climate Change Action Plan has the aim of reducing CO2
          from all forms of transport in London by 25% by 2020 . This will
          be acheived despite a 50% growth in energy used by the tube
          system due to line upgrades. It is ambitious, but their policy
          unit have spent a year doing the figures and working out the most
          cost effective approaches. The plan will be formally launched in
          the next month.
          >
          > Most of the traffic reduction will come from the
          reallocation of road space over time - redesign of public spaces,
          new cycle/bus lanes and road pricing.
          >
          > The barriers to this are many and varied, but more work
          needs to be done on planning - although the density of housing
          has increased several fold, we need far more restictive parking
          standards. Also, the fares in London have been hiked up in order
          to help pay for all the new infrastructure.
          >
          > Cheers
          >
          > IW
          >
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NewMobility
          Cafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Britton (ChoiceMail)
          > Sent: 25 January 2007 14:49
          > To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Old Mobility rules - 5 kinds of
          cities
          >
          >
          >
          > I am delighted to hear Ian that London is a
          strong Category 5 candidate? I recall when I was lending a hand
          in the Contested Streets film out of New York last summer, that they
          were looking very favorably on your fair city as a possible
          example.
          >
          > But just to be quite sure on the ground rules in all
          this.
          >
          > Category 5:
          >
          > Verifiable progress for the full defined city area (we
          need to be very clear on this) in terms of:
          >
          >
          > 1. An explicit announced and strongly defended and
          supported city policy to this effect.
          >
          >
          > 2. Global decreases in overall vehicle traffic (not
          just here and there). I.e., for the city area as a whole
          >
          >
          > 3. Corresponding area-wide CO2 decreases (though to
          measure but there are ways)
          >
          >
          > 4. Significant shifts from single occupancy (or
          thereabouts) car trips anywhere in the city area.
          >
          >
          > 5. Significant tightening of road space available for
          moving and stationary cars
          >
          >
          > 6. No quality sacrifices in "mobility for all" in terms
          of trip availability, cost and convenience for
          >
          >
          > It may be that the first three on this list are all we
          need to do this job, but let me post this as a challenge draft
          and see what we can do with it.
          >
          > I am eager to hear what others who know your city well
          have to say. I think this could prove a lively and creative
          exercise.
          >
          > Eric Britton
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > GREATERLOND ONAUTHORITY
          > EMAIL NOTICE:
          > The information in this email may contain confidential or
          privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at
          http://www.london.gov.uk/email-notice.jsp
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --
          > email from Andrew Curry
          >
          >
          > GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY
          > EMAIL NOTICE:
          > The information in this email may contain confidential or
          privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at
          http://www.london.gov.uk/email-notice.jsp
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis
          of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
          >
        • XavierTreviño
          Thinking about the 5-category cities excercise proposed by Eric, in the case of Mexico City, which is what I know best, there are different perceptions of the
          Message 4 of 28 , Feb 9, 2007
            Thinking about the 5-category cities excercise
            proposed by Eric, in the case of Mexico City, which is
            what I know best, there are different perceptions of
            the traffic and emmissions danger, in the Federal
            District, in the center area of the City (almost 9
            million people), and the outer Mexico City (another 9
            miillon in 15-20 different municipalities. In the
            central city since the 90s the goverment have been
            implementing isolated policies to control the carbon
            emmisions, including in 2006 the metrobus BRT project,
            that bring the área to Category 3.

            But the outer City is clearly Category 2 or even 1;
            they clearly worry, but the results of this are more
            roads, more bridges and more sprawl.

            X.

            --- eric.britton@... wrote:
            > I would like to propose to you a thinking exercise.
            > It works like this.



            ____________________________________________________________________________________
            TV dinner still cooling?
            Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
            http://tv.yahoo.com/
          • Chris Bradshaw
            Eric, This EU process on a review of urban transportation is worthy of us following it and at the appropriate moment, submitting a comprehensive set of
            Message 5 of 28 , Feb 9, 2007

              Eric,

              This EU process on a review of urban transportation is worthy of us
              following it and at the appropriate moment, submitting a comprehensive set
              of comments, that clearly sets out what "new mobility" can offer.

              Please post future key events in the process.

              I would like to try my hand at a paper from the carsharing 'industry.'

              Chris Bradshaw
              Ottawa

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.