Skip to main content

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."

Comments

  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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Podcasts on urban mobility and urban issues: a LONG list

Below is my increasingly long list of podcasts on urban mobility and/or urban issues. 

If you are not yet a regular podcast listener, you need to download a podcast-listening app to your phone, tablet or desktop and subscribe (it's free) to the podcasts that interest you.

UPDATE 1: This list has many podcasts but obviously I hope you will try mine! They are Reinventing Transport and Reinventing Parking.

UPDATE 2: I have added FOURTY ONE more since this was first published. Thanks to everyone who has sent tips.

Transport-based City Types and their Trajectories

I want to help you get perspective on your city and its transport system with the help of simple city types based on their dominant transport modes, such as Walking Cities, Transit Cities, Bus Cities, Motorcycle Cities and Car Cities.

This way of thinking about cities is a heuristic (an imperfect mental model or technique that is nevertheless good enough to be helpful). And it obviously is imperfect. For example, real cities often have various modes of transport, and modern cities are really all some kind of hybrid city type.

But it is still useful, especially if we add the idea of a Traffic Saturated City, which is a very different beast from a Car City. It is important for change-makers in Traffic Saturated Cities to be aware they are not in automobile dependent cities yet.

Options for digesting this: 
Read the brief article below and study the diagrams. They complement the podcast. For more depth, LISTEN to the 37 minute audio with the player above. A full transcript of the podcast is…

Parking: What's Wrong and How to Fix It

We should stop planning parking the way we plan toilets. I began with that odd (but true) statement to get your attention, obviously. But I am also serious.

Many people think parking policy is boring, which is unfortunate, because boring or not, parking is important.

If you care about cities and urban mobility, you really need to pay some attention to parking.

Most local governments really do plan parking the same way they plan toilets (using minimum parking/toilet requirements) and it is disastrous. More on that below.

Municipalities do this because of another mistake - treating on-street parking as a public good (and therefore failing to manage it properly). Please take note: parking in cities is generally NOT a public good.

These two mistakes cause huge problems:
1. on-street parking problems, which worsen many other mobility and street problems, and  2. a slow-motion disaster of increasingly excessive (but under-used) off-street parking supply which fuels car dependence.

It's …