Skip to main content

Combined Mobility thinking from UITP

Image
By
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."
Labels:

Comments

  1. Rafay AlamThursday, July 28, 2011 at 11:18:00 PM GMT+8

    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

Save Manila's (mostly informal) public transport!

By
Metro Manila depends on informal, lightly-regulated public transport which now faces a catastrophe as a result of this pandemic. The Mobility Coalition, an alliance of eight Metro Manila transport advocacy groups, has ideas on what to do. I spoke with Robie Siy who is active in the Mobility Coalition and who writes the weekly Mobility Matters column for the Manila Times.   [Scroll to the end for more details on Robie, Mobility Matters and the Mobility Alliance.] Scroll down for highlights of our conversation or listen with the player below. Click here to learn how to subscribe to this podcast.
Post a Comment
More »

Singapore Urban Transport: The Warts-and-All Story

By
Singapore's National Day is this week (9 August). So I decided to share Singapore's urban transport story - or my slightly  unusual take on it .  It is   a unique city in various ways but its urban transport policies are well worth your attention even if you don't live in Singapore. This is a warts-and-all version of the story, and it is my own view, not any kind of official one. It's also a little wonkish in parts. [Hi all you policy wonks!] But I hope to keep your interest with some surprising twists, such as: Why was the bus-only public transport system in an awful state by the early 1970s? If the buses were awful in early 1974, how was Singapore able to impose drastic increases to the cost of motoring in 1975? You will have guessed that the buses must have been drastically improved in 1974/75. But how was that achieved? Singapore urban transport enjoyed success through the 1980s and 1990s but its core social bargain (cars for the rich; decent but bas
Post a Comment
More »

Shaping public transport

By
If you care about promoting public transport, you need to understand the key choices about organising and regulating it. These choices shape the industry and they really matter. This is NOT just about privatisation versus government operation. It is more interesting than that. This edition of Reinventing Transport shares the key alternatives and gives a sense of what's at stake. The focus is buses but most of the ideas also apply more widely. Click here to learn how to subscribe to the podcast. You can either read the article below or listen to the podcast episode  (use a podcast app or the player at the beginning of this article or click HERE ) . This is just the basics, not a deep dive. If you want more gory details, then follow the links right at the end of the article. It may seem dull but bus regulation is important! [1:29] The regulatory framework sets how decisions get made and who makes those choices. It makes a huge difference for things you care about
1 comment
More »