irishboyinlondon

Gehl Architects on the proposed introduction of congestion charging for Copenhagen: If the Betalingsring is the answer, then what was the question again?

Picture: Gehl Architects - Ways to add quality to the design of town centres

The problems that the Betalingsring is trying to solve originate not in our city centre but in our suburbs, we need to improve the quality of the town centers that comprise Copenhagen metropolitan region ensuring they are walkable, bike-able and provide everyday amenities. We need to improve connections and accessibility between these town centers and into the centre of Copenhagen. We need broad investment in a variety of transit options from car-sharing to public transit to ensure high quality alternatives and most importantly we need to consider the suburbs and promote medium density and quality housing. We want a city that works in the center and at the edges…

.…We aim to shift the discussion from mere political grandstanding to what ought to be the key question; how do we achieve good quality of life for all Copenhageners, a question which we all need to take seriously and responsibility for achieving. Improving quality of life and making a better city for our shared future is about more than charging motorists to drive into the centre. It should be visionary, ambitious and holistic in approach…

….Just as we have made our city centre walkable, bike-able and attractive – this should be applied more widely creating towns that provide everyday amenities. In our experience with working in transit hubs in both Gothenburg and Skåne, improving the quality within 1km of the transit hubs including park and ride schemes, reliable wifi connections that support working while commuting and other initiatives that improve convenience can greatly increase the attractiveness of public transport and really affect people’s transit choices.

01/24/12

Sustainable Development Commission: Fairness in a Car Dependent Society

An interesting report from the now defunct Sustainable Development Commission!

Fairness in a Car Dependent Society, finds that vulnerable groups not only travel less than other people, they carry a greater burden of the costs of other people’s travel, including air pollution, noise, traffic danger, injury and crime. Other findings include:

• The richest 10 per cent of the population benefit from receive four times as much public spending on transport as the poorest 10 per cent
• Children of the lowest socioeconomic groups are up to 28 times more likely to be killed on the roads than those of the top socioeconomic group
• The most common cause of death for children aged 5-14 years is being hit by a vehicle
• Those in the top income quintile travel two and half times as far as those in the bottom income quintile and three times as far by car
• In the lowest income quintile, less than half of adults hold a driving licence and less than half of households have a car whilst half of all households in the highest income quintile have two or more cars. For those claiming income support or jobseeker’s allowance, car access figures are even lower – almost two thirds do not have access to a car and a licence to drive it
• Car owners in the lowest income quintile spend 25 per cent of total household expenditure on motoring (by comparison spending 10 per cent of income on household energy bills is defined as ‘fuel poverty) People living in rural areas now see car ownership as a necessity and around 90 per cent of households have at least one car. The cost of motoring was found to account for 60 to 100 per cent of the additional income calculated as being required for rural dwellers to meet a minimum socially acceptable standard of living commensurate with urban dwellers
• SDC estimate that the total cost of our level of car dependency significantly exceeds the £48 billion per annum in taxes and charges on UK road users.

The report is recommending a new approach to transport policy in line with the Coalition Government’s commitment to fairness as one of its three guiding principles. The Commission’s recommendations centre on its Transport Hierarchy for policy makers, calling on policy-makers to prioritise reducing the demand for transport; encouraging more sustainable modes of transport and improving the efficiency of existing modes of transport over increasing the capacity of the transport system.

08/15/11

Study: City bike sharing programs save lives, reduce carbon emissions

plantedcity:

From Reuters:

Public bicycle sharing schemes such as Barcelona’s “Bicing” program or London’s “Boris Bikes” save lives and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a study on Friday.
Bike schemes are becoming increasingly popular in cities around the world, with more than 360 already running, but their main aim is usually to ease congestion rather than boost health.
Researchers at the Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona found in a study, however, that around 9,000 tons of carbon dioxide pollution are averted and some 12 lives saved each year by Barcelona’s scheme, which was introduced in March 2007.
“Active transport policies such as bike sharing systems promote physical activity among the population and are a good means to improve public health and also reduce expenses in public health services,” said David Rojas-Rueda, whose study was published in the British Medical Journal.
…
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends adults should do at least 150 minutes of moderate exercise a week and says this could be done by walking for 30 minutes five times per week, or by cycling to work every day.
…

The researchers said this initial assessment suggested it was important “to encourage cities to change car use by cycling and stimulate the implementation of bike sharing systems in cities to improve the health of the population.”

Check out the rest of the article, including details about London and Barcelona’s bike share systems, here. For an overview of the rapid growth of bike sharing programs around the world take a look at National Geographic’s recent article, ‘Bike share Schemes Shift Into High Gear’. Ride on!

(Photo credit: Inhabitat)

08/8/11

Image credit: Pete McCommons

The road user heirarchy and eggs

I am beginning to get more than a little agitated with the commonly voiced argument here in London that all road users are equal…that bicycles shouldn’t get anymore priority than a car should get!

All road users are not equal! Some are more powerful, some more vulnerable.

The extract below is one of the Conservative groups dissenting responses to “The Future of Road Congestion in London”, which was published last week by the London Assembly.

Amongst other things, the report recommended the reintroduction of the Road User Hierarchy, which was abolished about three years ago by the current (conservative majority) administration. The conservatives commented that;

Roads should be thoroughfares which enable all users, whether they are cyclists, motorists, pedestrians, bus passengers, van drivers, taxi passengers or motorcyclists to get from A to B as swiftly and as safely as possible. Neither the Mayor nor the Government should impose an artificial road user hierarchy as this inevitably has the effect of deliberately slowing down some users. Further to this, the Mayor should encourage cycling by emphasising that it is cheap, healthy and quick, not by worsening conditions for other road users.

I have no problems with the first sentence, but i believe the negative slant on the second sentence is flawed and uniformed.

To make it simple for our friends at TfL and City Hall - I shall compare road users to eggs.

Side by side a hard boiled egg (car) and an uncooked egg (bicycle) look identical (they are both modes of transport). But drop both and see the difference! The hard boiled will stay relatively solid…perhaps its shell might crack. Drop the uncooked egg and the damage will be far more severe…even if you were to wrap the uncooked egg in tissue paper (a helmet) and then drop it, the uncooked egg is far more vulnerable…

06/27/11

irishboyinlondon

Ask me anything