7 simple truths of sustainable mobility
I don't wish to give the impression that I think I have an answer to every good point that you and the others are bringing up, but please let me share a couple of quick thoughts with you on the points you make this morning:
1. When we speak of the importance of bringing in a much wider range of affordable and competitive non-own car options, it is not only the thin red line of carsharing and ridesharing. The gamut of available and proven new mobility services is very very wide, and of course includes improvements and innovations in traditional public transport services.
2. And if the new or improved non-car services "take away" patronage from scheduled services, it is just because they offer better service to people. In this new context that should not be a problem, since the latter are part of the package and will be major beneficiaries of the new web of policy and practice in the sector. The New Mobility Agenda does not spell the death of traditional scheduled, fixed route transit,. To the contrary it creates the conditions of a new Spring of innovation and adjustment for public transport operators to help them find their place in the new and much different mobility requirements of a 21st century, and to many, at times 24 hour city.
3. And oh yes, the goal is not just "car like" mobility -- but "better than own-cars" in the new operating environment which will offer more space efficient, resource efficient, affordable and softer transport options.
But at the end of the day, I feat that what I am seeing here is that my "seven simple truths" are perhaps not yet well enough expressed to convince. So I shall have to get back to work on it.
For of one thing I am sure: if it can't be expressed clearly convincingly on a single readable page, then it will never get done.
On Behalf Of Simon Norton
Sent: Monday, 28 February, 2011 10:47
1. Our measures must include whether people can in fact make the journeys they
need and want to make. A big danger of systems based on carpooling and
ridesharing is that they do not provide reliable transport for people without
cars, and may in fact abstract revenue from public transport which does try to
2. I think that aspiring to car-like mobility for all is a bit optimistic.
Public transport may be able to compete in these terms where there is heavy
congestion (which would be avoided if most people switched to public transport),
or where parking is a major problem, or for journeys which can use fast rail
transport. But we need to reduce the expectations of motorists.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you can offer car-like mobility to some of the
people all of the time (which is what we're doing now, at huge environmental
cost), or all of the people some of the time (which is what would happen if we
designed cars out of our cities), but it is optimistic to hope to offer it to
all of the people all of the time and we should not regard it as a flaw in a
system that it does not do that.
- Simon Norton schrieb:
> 1. Our measures must include whether people can in fact make the journeys theyI agree. I tried to to organize a car-pool system in a Englsh village I lived
> need and want to make. A big danger of systems based on carpooling and
> ridesharing is that they do not provide reliable transport for people without
> cars, and may in fact abstract revenue from public transport which does try to
> do so.
with near ideal conditions. Nobody used it. I myself didn't use it. The same
thing has happened in Switzerland with several well-organized and well-funded
efforts. Soemhow these make people feel too unfree.
What is however a huge success is car-timesharing. There is no need to own a car
for occasional trips.