Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Combined Mobility thinking from UITP

When I wrote my last post "From Carsharing to Mobility Brokers" I didn't realise that the UITP was about to release a position paper on the issue. UITP is the International Association of Public Transport.

I was alerted to UITP's work on this by the cover story of New Transit magazine (7 July 2011 issue) from the UK: "Time to forget modes... the future is in the Mobility Mix". The article is well worth reading. It is subscription only but there is a free preview offer that allows a peek:
Today’s customers have a new attitude to their travel choices. Offering “combined-mobility” across the modes can persuade people away from the private car. So what are the ingredients in this new mix, and who should take the lead on serving them up?
I am particularly interested in that last question!

The UITP report is by its Combined Mobility Platform. The English language version is here as a pdf. Various language versions are available

UITP is urging its members "to build intermodal strategic alliances with Combined Mobility services such as taxis, bikes and car-sharing. This is the key to becoming real mobility providers, enabling a more complete offer for customers and delivering lifestyle services."

1 comment:

  1. I'm a lawyer in Lahore, Pakistan and am counsel in a case in which I am arguing that there is a right to mobility. As in it is everyone's fundamental right to get from A to B. Sounds simple enough, but what I'm asking the Court to do is to recognize that the right to mobility is not an infrastructure problem (In other words, throwing an overpass or a rapid mass transit system is not the solution) Instead, what I'm arguing is for the Court to recognize that the right to mobility is about choices. It's about the choices one has of getting from A to B, be it to walk, cycle, take a bus or taxi or private automobile, ride a mass transit bus or rail system or even use an escalator or elevator.

    These are the multiplicity of choices that comprise the right to mobility and the restriction on choice, I argue, is a violation of the right to mobility. In other words, if urban development prefers expressways over walkways, it can be argued that urban development is violating the right to mobility.

    In the Pakistani context, I must add that there is very little choice of mobility. Urban sprawl in cities is automobile dependent. There are no proper sidewalks, the public transport is inefficient and under-capacity. It is my personal opinion that, given the conditions existing in each of the choices, women, children, senior citizens and the handicapped are effectively immobile. This constitutes nearly half the population and can also be argued to be a major retardant of the economy and social interaction.

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails