Hundreds of Cars, No Garage: Recipe for a low carbon future – Australian perspectives on sustainable transportation

We are trying to get a better look at how sustainable transportation is coming along in Australia, as an example of one of the several handfuls of heavily motorized countries which have for decades concentrated on building (and in the process unknowingly locking themselves into) what is basically an all-car infrastructure. This is the second in what we intend to be a series of articles on this topic. Published with the permission of the author, a professor in the media department of a leading Australian university, it takes an outside-looking-in perspective of our topic. Continue reading

Learning from each other: New York looks at London (So who are you looking at?)

We started World Series last year not because we felt that we were going to tell you everything you need to know about sustainable transportation, but rather to offer you a lively independent platform with worldwide coverage in which all of those of us were concerned with these issues can exchange ideas and commentaries freely. Here is a good example of a shared learning process that does not have to stop with the two cities directly involved in this report. Continue reading

20’s Plenty Where People Live in Portsmouth

In the firm belief that you cannot get too much of a slow thing, here is a second piece in a row on how they are slowing things down in Portsmouth and Britain more generally. We present it as a step toward building your own tool kit for slowing things down in your city. Look at Portsmouth and build on their example to do better yet on your streets. As Newton reminded us, real progress occurs only by standing on the shoulders of giants

Twenty’s Plenty Where People Live in Portsmouth

– Rod King, 20’s Plenty for Us , UK

On 14th May 2008 in a United Kingdom House of Commons Transport Committee evidence session the respected head of the Netherlands Road Safety Institute, Fred Wegman, commented :-

“Until 2000 we were always looking to the United Kingdom when it came to road safety. You were the inventors of many good activities and polices. All of a sudden, somewhere in 2000, you stopped doing things and we continued with our efforts. A simple figure to illustrate that is that, compared to 2000, in 2006 you had 7% fewer fatalities in this country. We have one third fewer.”

The resultant critical review of road safety in the UK by the Transport Select Committee was tellingly entitled “Ending the Scandal of Complacency: Road Safety beyond 2010”

Experts will debate the reasons for the slow down in better safety on UK roads. Some will put it down to an over-reliance on engineering measures which may well simply keep prevailing vehicle speeds higher and inevitably make it more dangerous for our vulnerable road users. Indeed whilst the number of total road fatalities has dropped from 3,221 in 2004 to 2,538 in 2008, the percentage of these which were pedestrians has been steadily rising from 20.83% in 2004 to 22.54% in 2008. In fact UK’s skewing of road fatalities towards pedestrians is one of the highest in Europe where the average across the EU14 countries in 2005 was just 14%. In 2005 in the Netherlands it was just 9.4%.

However, things are changing. In 2006 the Department of Transport issued some new guidelines to Local Authorities for setting speed limits. One city, Portsmouth, seized upon a slight change in the guidelines for 20 mph limits without traffic calming and decided to embark upon a new initiative based upon the premise that 20’s plenty where people live.

And last week at a special conference “Portsmouth – Britain’s First 20 mph City” the presentations in the Guild Hall in Portsmouth may well have created a pivotal point in road danger reduction in the UK.

Until now, speed management has mainly been implemented by means of localised interventions on streets to make the driver slow down. Whether they are speed cameras, or speed bumps the essential engagement has been with the driver on the road whilst he or she is driving.

At the conference, Portsmouth City Council and the Department for Transport reported on the results from the completely different approach taken by Portsmouth when in March 2008 they completed their setting of all residential roads, bar arterial routes, with a speed limit of 20 mph. 1,200 streets were set to 20 mph over a 9 month period. No bumps or humps, but most importantly a decision not just made by Traffic Officers but by the whole community as they sought a way to deliver lower speeds and a better quality of life for their residents. Quite simply, Portsmouth people decided to slow down wherever people live!

Of course, setting lower speeds with traffic calming is so expensive that one only usually does it where you have excessive speed problems. But when you make the decision as a community to slow down wherever people live then it is inevitable that many streets will already have speeds below 20 mph. In fact in Portsmouth they monitored 159 sites. 102 already had mean speeds of 20 mph or less. 36 were between 20 mph and 24 mph, whilst on a further 21 the mean speed was above 24 mph.

And because of that mix it was found that overall the mean speed for all the roads did not change very much. In fact it reduced by just 1%. But what was very significant was the fact that in those streets where speeds previously were 24 mph or above then a huge 7mph reduction in mean speed was recorded.

Whilst casualties also fell by 15% and total accidents by 13%, more time will be needed to establish statistically significant collision figures. However, the presenter noted the changes in child and elderly casualties in before and after numbers :


Portsmouth’s success is as a community that has debated how the streets should be shared more equitably and has gone through the due political, democratic and administrative process to take that community commitment and turn it into a framework within which everyone can take their part in making their city a better place to live. One where casualties reduce and people have quieter streets with more opportunities for cycling and walking.

The spaces between our houses, which we call streets, will never be the same in this country. Portsmouth has shown that communities can change their behaviour and sensibly embark on a 20’s Plenty Where People Live initiative that delivers real benefits to every road user. More and more towns, cities and villages are following this trend to put citizenship back into the way we drive and share our roads. The same plan is proposed in Oxford, Leicester, Newcastle, Norwich and Islington, with widespread trials being conducted in Bristol and Warrington.

But people in Portsmouth are perhaps no different from us all. But what they have found is a way to enable them to turn an aspiration for safer and more pleasant streets into a reality. I suspect there will be plenty more similar communities saying 20’s plenty for them as well. And that may well put the United Kingdom back on track in improving the safety of vulnerable road users and bringing a little more calmness to our urban and residential streets.

# # #

Rod King is Founder of 20’s Plenty for Us, a national voluntary organisation formed in 2007 to support local communities who want lower vehicle speeds on residential and urban roads. 20’s Plenty for Us works with local groups around the country as well as lobbying central and local government. He can be reached at 20’s Plenty for Us – http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk Tel +44 07973 639781 . E: rodk@20splentyforus.org.uk

Portsmouth – Britain’s First Twenty is Plenty City (mph)

One of the pillars of the New Mobility Agenda approach to sustainable transport in cities, is to slow down the traffic. It works as an environmental trigger. Thus when you start to go slower, when you organize your daily life around this principle, you necessarily end up going less far. Which in turn sends out a whole range of signals for land use in our cities. The exact opposite of the forces behind urban sprawl and all that goes with it. If there were one first step to take, slowing things down would have a strong claim to this place of honor. And this movement is gaining real force in Britain.

Portsmouth – Britain’s First Twenty is Plenty (mph) City

Portsmouth has many claims to fame, home of the British Navy, Western Europe’s most densely populated city and now the first city in Britain to set a 20 mph limit across its residential road network.

What sets the 20 mph speed limit in Portsmouth apart from the other two and a half thousand 20 mph zones in England is not just that it is city wide, but also that it relies not on traffic calming or speed cameras for enforcement, but simply signs and publicity to encourage driver behaviour change.

It could be argued that this is one of the largest travel behaviour change initiatives in the country, and although the main objective for the scheme is safety, there are potential modal shift benefits which the city hopes to realise.

How the scheme works

The scheme was made possible by the amendment to Section 84 of Road Traffic Regulation Act in 1999 which allowed local authorities to set local speed limits without the need to get Secretary of State approval.

Due to a high population density, Portsmouth streets were largely already slow moving, so while the decision to go for a city wide 20mph limit was brave; it was not without local support.

The 20mph limit was launched in six city sectors, with the first introduced on 1st October 2007 and the last in March 2008.

In line with DfT guidance the streets included in the scheme were largely residential where average speeds were already below 24 mph, and while the strategic roads network was excluded, they have included some high volume routes where average speeds were above 30 mph.

Following a media campaign and wide scale community consultation process, streets that were to be included within the 20 mph limit had roundels painted at the entrance together with 20 mph signs, with repeater signs placed at 150m intervals along the length of the route.

The speed limit has been largely self-enforcing, with local residents being proactive in reporting speeding traffic. Traffic speed surveys have been used to identify problem streets, which have then been reported to the partnership of police and council officers, which swoop on offending drivers several times a year. The support of local motorists to the 20 mph limit is essential, so rather than just issue a penalty notice, police offer offending drivers an option of attending a half hour seminar educating them on the danger of speeding, which has proven very effective.

How Behaviour Change Interventions have been used

For a project of this nature, where the aim was a culture change, promotion and consultation has been the key.

To highlight the benefits of lower speeds the city first targeted the most vulnerable road users, school children, and issued each school child with pamphlets listing the roads which were to have a slower speed limit. The pamphlet included a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section and a hotline was set up for further information.

Posters and informational leaflets were distributed at public places such as schools, community centers, health centers, libraries, churches, sports clubs and universities.

Neighborhood forums were extensively consulted, with city officials going out to talk to them about the proposals and to listen to their concerns.

The local media and press, while initially skeptical, soon understood the potential benefits, and published many positive articles about the scheme. While the city also published statutory notices in local newspapers.

While of course there were some very vociferous objections from a small minority, overall objections were in fact minimal, and the vast majority of messages received by the city were in support of the proposals.

How effective has it been?

Since the scheme is so new, it has been difficult to gather clear robust evidence of effectiveness, but initial results appear positive.

Speed surveys show that there has been a reduction of about 0.9mph in the residential roads where average speeds were previously at or below 24 mph.

The most effective measures were actually on streets where speeds were previously above 30 mph, which have seen average speeds fall by as much as 7 mph.

While very few physical calming measures have been used, extra space has been provided for pedestrians and cyclists, and straight roads have been made to meander in those streets which had recent fatalities.

Initial evidence show a reduction in traffic incidents, and overall casualties are down across the city since the implementation of the 20 mph limit.

The potential for modal shift

There is anecdotal evidence that some modal shift has already been achieved, but so far there has been no study to confirm if this is the case. However since road danger is usually cited as the primary barrier to cycling, it seems logical to assume that a city wide reduction in speeds would have some impact.

Promotion of the 20mph limit initially targeted schools as an extension of the safe routes to school programme, and children have been encouraged to celebrate the introduction of the lower speed limits. This link between school travel plans and the safe speeds initiative should reinforce each other and help increase sustainable travel to school in the future.

It is known from other initiatives that when packages of measures are applied together such as parking controls, PTP, WTP, bus priority, then this does have a significant impact on modal shift.

While this has not yet been applied in Portsmouth, the smarter choices team have been included from the beginning and future modal shift promotion is planned, with ideas such as community street parties being considered.

Conclusions

While the overall speed reduction and impacts on accidents is much greater for a traffic calmed 20mph zone, than a city wide 20mph limit without accompanying calming, there are distinct advantages of a city wide limit.

The costs are much lower, and issues over emergency vehicle access, noise generation are avoided. With lower costs and less resistance to the initiative from the media and public, it has been possible to roll out the limit city wide in a very short space of time. This is a huge benefit in itself, since residents of the city all gain from living in a 20mph street themselves; they are also much more likely to respect the speed limit for neighboring communities that they drive through.

While it has so far not been possible to evaluate the full benefits of the limit, initial evidence seems to show that road safety has improved, and with a coordinated smarter choices follow up initiative it seems certain that significant modal shift benefits could be gained from the scheme.

Thus the ultimate benefits could be many; public health, well being, noise, pollution, climate change, reduction in accidents, deaths, reducing NHS and police costs.

# # #

About the author:
Rory McMullan works for PTRC Education and Research Services, which organises training events for transport professionals on topics such as Portsmouth’s introduction of a 20 mph speed limit. As a cyclist and father, Rory is a strong supporter of slower speed limits in cities, because road danger caused by fast moving traffic is one of the main barriers to the take up of cycling, and the biggest concern for protecting the safety of children, whether walking, cycling or playing on our streets.

References:
* Speed limit to be cut to 20 mph in government bid to reduce number of road deathshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1171706/Speed-limit-cut-20mph-government-bid-reduce-number-road-deaths.html
* 20mph speed limit on residential roads in Portsmouthhttp://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/living/8403.html
* Related World Streets articles: http://newmobilityagenda.blogspot.com/search/label/slower

 

How Soon Will Cutting Transportation Emissions Save Money?

From the rough and tumble world of US transportation politics, Elana Schor of DC.STREETSBLOG.org takes an independent look at the Moving Cooler report, and tries to help those of us who do not necessarily understand DC-speak what it means for the real world.

Elana Schor, Washington DC, Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Anyone who kept tabs on the House’s climate change bill last month recalls much acrimonious ado about the plan’s impact on average American pocketbooks. The GOP tossed out cost estimates that turned out to [2] be manipulated, while nonpartisan projections showed the bill actually saving [3] money for low-income families.

But the unfortunate truth [4] about the House climate bill is how little incentive it provides for reducing the carbon footprint of the nation’s transportation sector, which accounts for about 30 percent of total U.S. emissions.

So how much would it cost to seriously tackle transportation emissions, through transit expansion, land use, and strategies to encourage less driving? A new report [1] released this morning by a coalition of government agencies and environmental groups offers a groundbreaking answer to that question.

The Moving Cooler report, as it’s known, divided an array of emissions-reduction tactics into bundles, reflecting the likelihood that several of them will be instituted at once as part of a larger climate effort.

Pictured above is the chart that depicts the “long term/maximum results” bundle — in plain English, a package deal of congestion pricing, high-speed rail, expanded transit and inter-city passenger rail, car-sharing, more HOV lanes, and increased highway capacity to clear bottlenecks.

The estimated savings from those proposals begin to outweigh the costs of implementation around 2016, according to the report, which was co-sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration.

But for other bundles of tactics, the savings from reducing emissions are more immediate; for others, they are more far-off. What about a package focusing on improving the efficiency of transportation systems, with highway expansion, speed limit reductions, and freight capacity boosts, but less attention to transit and rail?

That bundle would begin to save money by around 2022, the report found, with total savings reaching a peak of $80 billion per year in present-day dollars. Adding transit and rail to the mix nearly doubles the estimated savings, as the chart depicted above shows.

Another bundle of tactics focused on those that can be implemented right away at a low cost, though some of them also face considerable political opposition: congestion pricing, urban parking restrictions, transit fare reductions, and eco-driving. That package saves money almost immediately, the report’s authors found.

Implementing the report’s full array of solutions would result in estimated emissions reductions of as much as 24 percent every year. If that could be achieved, by 2050 the transportation sector would have provided one-fourth of the total greenhouse gas cuts required under the House climate bill. Of course, that’s a tremendous “if.”

The process starts, as one panelist involved in the report noted today, by recognizing that transportation has a major role to play in the climate bill and making it a prominent part of the discussion — more prominent, even, than the debate over [5] how long to wait before re-writing federal transportation policy.

# # #
Article reprinted with permission from Streetsblog Capitol Hill: http://dc.streetsblog.org

URL to article: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/07/28/how-soon-will-cutting-transportation-emissions-save-money/

URLs in this post:

[1] Moving Cooler: http://movingcooler.info/

[2] turned out to: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/mit-scientists-republicans-misusing-my-climate-change-paper.php

[3] actually saving: http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=AP&date=20090622&id=10043858

[4] unfortunate truth: http://washingtonindependent.com/49985/public-transit-loses-to-polluters-in-climate-bill-subsidies

[5] the debate over: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/07/27/a-make-or-break-week-for-transportation-begins-on-the-hill/

One thousand cities where you can carshare this morning

Think that the idea of a “shared car” is still a marginal phenomenon not ready for prime time and appealing to only a few ragged Greens here and there? Check out this listing to see where you can pick up a shared car this morning and drive it off to wherever it is you need to go in more than one thousand cities worldwide. Not so ragged, eh?

The listing that follows offers the latest cut of one that we have been compiling and continuously updating for some years in answer to the following simple question: “I woke up in the morning in XXX, and can I carshare here”? The list as it stands is pretty solid, but despite our great care we are aware that there are still places out there which we have yet to identify. But it’s as good a start as you are likely to find anywhere.

So, you want to know where you can carshare this morning? Let’s have a look at the one thousand cities where you can do just that this morning.

1. Aachen
2. Aalsmeer
3. Aarau
4. Aarhus
5. Abcoude
6. Adiswil
7. Adligenswil
8. Aesch
9. Affoltern/A.
10. Alexandria.
11. Alkmaar
12. Allschwil
13. Almere
14. Alpnach
15. Altdorf
16. Altstatten
17. Amersfoort
18. Amriswil
19. Amstelveen
20. Amsterdam
21. Amsterdam_Zuid
22. Amstetten
23. Andelfingen
24. Andermatt
25. Ann_Arbor
26. Antwerp
27. Apeldoorn
28. Appenzell
29. Arbon
30. Arlington
31. Arnhem
32. Arnstadt
33. Arth-Goldau
34. Ashburton
35. Aspen
36. Assen
37. Atlanta
38. Austin_TX
39. Baar
40. Bad_Gleichenberg
41. Bad_Homburg
42. Bad_Ragaz
43. Bad_Sackingen
44. Bad_Schwartau
45. Bad_Vilbel
46. Baden
47. Baden/Wien
48. Baltimore
49. Barcelona
50. Baretswil
51. Basel
52. Bassersdorf
53. Bath
54. Bauma
55. Bayreuth
56. Belfast_(shut)
57. Bellevue
58. Bellingham
59. Bellinzona
60. Belp
61. Bemmel
62. Bennekom
63. Bentham
64. Bergdietikon
65. Bergen
66. Bergisch_Gladbach
67. Bergsjöns
68. Berikon
69. Berkeley
70. Berlin
71. Bermgarten
72. Bern
73. Berne
74. Beromunster
75. Berthoud
76. Biberach
77. Biel
78. Bielefeld
79. Bienne
80. Bilthoven
81. Binningen
82. Birmingham
83. Birsfelden
84. Bludenz
85. Boblingen
86. Bochum
87. Boden
88. Bologna
89. Bolsward
90. Bolzano/Bozen
91. Bonn
92. Bonstetten
93. Borås
94. Bordeaux
95. Bordesholm
96. Borlänge
97. Boston
98. Bottmingen
99. Boulder
100. Bovenkarspel
101. Bozen
102. Bradford-on-Avon
103. Braunschweig
104. Breda
105. Breda
106. Bregenz
107. Bremen
108. Bremerhaven
109. Bremgarten
110. Breukelen
111. Brig
112. Brighton
113. Brighton_&_Hove
114. Brigue
115. Brisbane
116. Bristol
117. Brønshøj
118. Brookline
119. Buffalo
120. Bruges
121. Brugg
122. Brugg_Weiermatt
123. Brugge
124. Brummen
125. Brussels
126. Bubikon
127. Buchholz
128. Buchs
129. Buckfastleigh
130. Bulach
131. Bunnik
132. Bunschoten
133. Buochs
134. Burgdorf
135. Burlington_VT
136. Bussum
137. Calgary
138. Camberley
139. Cambridge_UK
140. Cambridge_MA
141. Capelle aan den ijssel
142. Carouge
143. Castricum
144. Castrop-Rauxel
145. Celle
146. Chaddleworth
147. Chagford
148. Cham
149. Chamvery
150. Chappel_Hill
151. Checircne-Bourg
152. Chester-le-street
153. Chicago
154. Chiètres
155. Chur
156. Clermont-Ferrand
157. Cleveland
158. Coburg
159. Colbe
160. Colchester
161. Colne_Valley
162. Copenhagen
163. Corburg
164. Cothen
165. Cottbus
166. Cranfield
167. Culemborg
168. Dachau
169. Dalfsen
170. Dancing Rabbit
171. Darmstadt
172. Davos
173. De
174. De bilt
175. Degersheim
176. Delémont
177. Delft
178. Delft
179. Delfzijl
180. Den_Bosch
181. Den_Haag
182. Denver
183. Dessau
184. Detroit
185. Deventer
186. Dielsdorf
187. Diemen
188. Dieren
189. Dietikon
190. Dinant
191. Doetinchem
192. Domat/Ems
193. Dordrecht
194. Dornach
195. Dornach-Arlesheim
196. Dornbirn
197. Dortmund
198. Dossenheim
199. Dresden
200. Driebergen
201. Dubendorf
202. Dublin
203. Dudingen
204. Dübendorf
205. Düdingen
206. Duisburg
207. Duren
208. Durham
209. Durnten
210. Dusseldorf
211. East_Bay
212. EastSide
213. Ebikon
214. Ebnat-Kappel
215. Ecublens
216. Ede
217. Edinburgh
218. Edmonton
219. Effretikon
220. Eglisau
221. Eindhoven
222. Einsiedeln
223. Elgg
224. Elmshorn
225. Elst (utr.)
226. Emmen
227. Emmenbrücke
228. Enkhuizen
229. Enschede
230. Enzingen
231. Eppstein
232. Erfurt
233. Erlangen
234. Erstfeld
235. Esbjerg
236. Eskilstuna
237. Espoo
238. Essen
239. Esslingen
240. Ettlingen
241. Eugene
242. Eutin
243. Exeter
244. Fairfax_County
245. Falkenberg
246. Fallanden
247. Falun
248. Farum
249. Faulensee
250. Feldkirch
251. Fellbach
252. Filderstadt
253. Flawil
254. Florence
255. Fort_Collins
256. Fort_Wayne
257. Frankfurt/M
258. Frauenfeld
259. Freising
260. Frenkendorf
261. Fribourg
262. Frick
263. Frutigen
264. Fukuoka
265. Furth
266. Gainesville
267. Gallaway
268. Garching
269. Gatineau
270. Gauting
271. Gävle
272. Gebenstorf
273. Gegraveneve
274. Geldrop
275. Gelsenkirchen
276. Gelterkinden
277. Genève
278. Genova
279. Gent
280. Gevelsberg
281. Ghent
282. Gieszlig;en
283. Gipf-Oberfrick
284. Gisikon
285. Giswil
286. Gland
287. Glaris
288. Gleisdorf
289. Gléresse
290. Goldach
291. Gorinchem
292. Gorssel
293. Gossau
294. Gossau_SG
295. Gothenborg
296. Göttingen
297. Gouda
298. Grabs
299. Grafelfing
300. Granges
301. Granollers
302. Graz
303. Greenbelt
304. Grenchen
305. Grenoble
306. Greven
307. Greyrock_Commons
308. Groningen
309. Grootebroek
310. Grut
311. Gstaad
312. Guelph
313. Gümligen
314. Guildford
315. Haarlem
316. Hagen
317. Halberstadt
318. Halifax
319. Halle
320. Halmstad
321. Hamburg
322. Hameln
323. Hamilton
324. Hanau
325. Hannover
326. Harderwijk
327. Haren
328. Hasle
329. Hasselt
330. Hausen_am_Albis
331. Hebden_Bridge
332. Hedingen
333. Heemstede
334. Heerbrugg
335. Heerlen
336. Heidelberg
337. Heiden
338. Heidenheim
339. Heiloo
340. Heimenschwand
341. Helsingborg
342. Helsinki
343. Hemsbach
344. Hengelo
345. Herbrechtingen
346. Herdecke
347. Herisau
348. Herning
349. Herrenberg
350. Herrliberg-Feldmeile
351. Herzogenbuchsee
352. Heuchelheim
353. High Wycombe
354. Hildesheim
355. Hillegom
356. Hilversum
357. Hinwil
358. Hiroshima
359. Hisingens
360. Hitzkirch
361. Hoboken
362. Hochdorf
363. Hofheim
364. Hofstetten-Flüh
365. Hohenem
366. Holzwickede
367. Hombrechtikon
368. Hoogkarspel
369. Hoorn
370. Horgen
371. Hørsholm
372. Horw
373. Houten
374. Hove
375. Huckelhoven
376. Huddersfield
377. Huizen
378. Ibbenbüren
379. Iéna
380. Ijsselsteik
381. Ilanz
382. Illnau
383. Ilpendam
384. Ingolstadt
385. Innsbruck
386. Interlaken
387. Ipsach
388. Irvine
389. Iserlohn
390. Ithica_NY
391. Ittigen
392. Jegenstorf
393. Jena
394. Jona
395. Jönköping
396. Jylland
397. Kaarst
398. Kalmar
399. Kapfenberg
400. Karlsruhe
401. Karlstad
402. Kassel
403. Katwijk
404. Kehrsatz
405. Kempten
406. Kesgrave
407. Kiel
408. Kingston
409. Kirchberg
410. Kirchheim
411. Kirchheim/Teck
412. Kirchlindach
413. Kirchzarten
414. Kitakyushu
415. Kitchener-Waterloo
416. Kitsap_County
417. Klagenfurt
418. Klosters
419. Kloten
420. Knonau
421. Kobe
422. København
423. Koblenz
424. Koln
425. Köniz
426. Konolfingen
427. Konstanz
428. Köping
429. Korneuburg
430. Kortrijk
431. Krefeld
432. Kreuzlingen
433. Kriens
434. Kristiansstad
435. Kufstein
436. Kusnacht
437. Kyoto
438. La_Chaux-de-Fonds
439. La_Rochelle
440. La_Tour-de-Peilz
441. Laatzen
442. Lachen
443. Landquart
444. Landshut
445. Landskrona
446. Landsmeer
447. Langen
448. Langendorf
449. Langenegg
450. Langenfeld
451. Langenhagen
452. Langenthal
453. Langnau
454. Laufen
455. Laufenburg
456. Laufon
457. Lausanne
458. Lausen
459. Le Locle
460. Leeds
461. Leeuwarden
462. Lehrte
463. Leicester
464. Leicester_Woodgate
465. Leiden
466. Leiderdorp
467. Leipzig
468. Lelystad
469. Lelystad
470. Lent
471. Lenzburg
472. Leusden
473. Leuven
474. Leverkusen
475. Lewes
476. Lichfield
477. Lichtensteig
478. Liège
479. Lienden
480. Liestal
481. Ligerz/Twann
482. Lignon
483. Lilienthal
484. Lille
485. Limerick
486. Lindau
487. Linköping
488. Linz
489. Lisse
490. Littau
491. Liverpool
492. Llanidoes
493. Locarno
494. Lochem
495. Lohmar
496. London
497. London_(Ont.)
498. Londonderry
499. Londres
500. Long_Beach,
501. Longueuil
502. Lorrach
503. Los_Angeles
504. Lostorf
505. Louvain_la_Neuve
506. Lubeck
507. Lucerne
508. Ludenscheid
509. Ludwigsburg
510. Ludwigshafen
511. Lübeck
512. Lüdenscheid
513. Lüneburg
514. Lugano
515. Luleå
516. Lund
517. Luneburg
518. Lupfig
519. Lustenau
520. Luzern
521. Lyon
522. Lyss
523. Maarssen
524. Maastricht
525. Machynlleth
526. Madison
527. Madrid
528. Magdeburg
529. Magden
530. Maidstone
531. Mainz
532. Majornas
533. Malmö
534. Malters
535. Manchester
536. Mannedorf
537. Mannheim
538. Marburg
539. Marl
540. Marly
541. Marseilles
542. Marthalen
543. Martigny
544. Mastricht
545. Maur
546. Maurik
547. Mayence
548. Mechelen
549. Meggen
550. Meiringen
551. Melbourne
552. Memmingen
553. Mendrisio
554. Menzingen
555. Merseburg
556. Merzhausen
557. Mettmenstetten
558. Meyrin
559. Middelburg
560. Milan
561. Minden
562. Minneapolis/St._Paul
563. Mittelhäusen
564. Modena
565. Mödling
566. Mohlin
567. Mölndal
568. Mönchaltorf
569. Mons
570. Montgomery_County
571. Monthey
572. Montpelier
573. Montreal
574. Montreux
575. Morges
576. Mortsel
577. Mosbach
578. Mössingen
579. Motala
580. Mountain_View
581. Mühlethurnen
582. Mülheim
583. Münchenbuchsee
584. Münchenstein
585. Münsingen
586. Münster
587. Mulheim/Ruhr
588. Munchenbuchsee
589. Munchsteinach
590. Munich
591. Munsingen
592. Munster
593. Muri
594. Muri-Gumligen
595. Muttenz
596. Nacka
597. Nagold
598. Nagoya
599. Namur
600. Nanaimo_(BC)
601. Nanikon
602. Nantes
603. Narbonne
604. Neckargmünd
605. Nelson _(BC)
606. Neuchacirctel
607. Neuchâtel
608. Neuenhof
609. Neuhausen
610. Neuss
611. Neu-Ulm
612. New_York_City
613. Newcastle
614. Newtown
615. Nice
616. Nidau
617. Niederbipp
618. Niedererlinsbach
619. Niederglatt
620. Niederhasli
621. Niederlenz
622. Niederrohrdorf
623. Niederscherli
624. Niederweningen
625. Nieuwegein
626. Nieuwerkerk ijssel
627. Nijmegen
628. Nimes
629. Noordwijk
630. Noordwijkerhout
631. Norwich
632. Nottuln
633. Nürnberg
634. Nussbaumen
635. Nyon
636. Oakland
637. Oberägeri
638. Oberdiessbach
639. Oberdorf/Stans
640. Oberentfelden
641. Oberglatt
642. Oberhausen
643. Oberkirch
644. Oberlunkhofen
645. Oberrieden
646. Oberursel
647. Oberuster
648. Oberwil
649. Obfelden
650. Odense
651. Odijk
652. Oegstgeest
653. Offenbach
654. Oftringen
655. Oldenburg
656. Olten
657. Ooij
658. Oostende
659. Oosterhout gld
660. Opfikon
661. Örebro
662. Osaka
663. Oslo
664. Osnarbruck
665. Ossingen
666. Österfärnebo
667. Ostermundigen
668. Östersund
669. Ostfildern
670. Ottawa
671. Ottenbach
672. Ottignies
673. Overijssel
674. Oxford
675. Palo_Alto
676. Pansdorf
677. Paris
678. Passau
679. Perth
680. Petit-Lancy
681. Pfaffikon
682. Pforzheim
683. Pfullingen
684. Philadelphia
685. Pieterlen
686. Pittsburgh
687. Plannegg
688. Plochingen
689. Poitiers
690. Poole
691. Porrentruy
692. Portland
693. Portsmouth
694. Potsdam
695. Pratteln
696. Preetz
697. Prilly
698. Prince_Georges_County
699. Princeton
700. Puch/Hallein
701. Puchheim
702. Pully
703. Purmerend
704. Québec
705. Quebec_City
706. Radolfzell
707. Rafz
708. Rankwell
709. Rannebergens
710. Rapperswil
711. Ratekau
712. Ratisbonne
713. Ratzeburg
714. Ravensburg
715. Reading
716. Rebstein
717. Redmond
718. Refrath
719. Regensburg
720. Regensdorf
721. Regina
722. Rehetobel
723. Reichenbach
724. Reinach
725. Renens
726. Reussbuhl
727. Reutlingen
728. Rheinfelden
729. Rhein-Neckar
730. Rhenen
731. Richmond
732. Richterswil
733. Riehen
734. Rifferswil
735. Rijnsburg
736. Rijswijk zh
737. Rikon
738. Rimini
739. Rodersdorf
740. Rodovre
741. Roermond
742. Roggwil
743. Rohr
744. Romanshorn
745. Rombach
746. Rome
747. Roosendaal
748. Rorschach
749. Rorschacherberg
750. Rosenheim
751. Roskilde
752. Rosmalen
753. Rostock
754. Rothenburg
755. Rothrist
756. Rotkreuz
757. Rottenburg
758. Rotterdam
759. Rotterdam
760. Rubigen
761. Rudolfstetten
762. Rümlang
763. Rüschlikon
764. Rüti
765. Rumlang
766. Ruschlikon
767. Russelsheim
768. Ruswil
769. Rutledge
770. Sgraveland
771. Sgravenhage
772. Saarbrucken
773. Sabadell
774. Sachseln
775. Saint_Paul
776. SaintQuentin
777. Sala
778. Salisbury
779. Salzburg
780. Samedan
781. San_Diego
782. San_Francisco
783. Sant_Cugat
784. Santa_Barbara
785. Santa_Monica
786. Santpoort noord
787. Sao Paulo
788. Sapporo
789. Sargans
790. Sarnen
791. Sarrebruck
792. Saskatoon
793. Sassenheim
794. Schaffhausen
795. Schalkwijk
796. Schallstadt
797. Schiedam
798. Schiedam
799. Schiers
800. Schliern
801. Schofflisdorf
802. Schoftland
803. Schonenwerd
804. Schopfheim
805. Schupfen
806. Schwabisch_Hall
807. Schwarzenburg
808. Schwechat
809. Schweinfurt
810. Schwerin
811. Schwerzenbach
812. Schwetzingen
813. Schwyz
814. Seattle
815. Seeheim-Jugenheim
816. Seelze
817. Sempach
818. Sheffield
819. Sherbrooke
820. ‘S-hertogenbosch
821. Siegburg
822. Siegen
823. Sindelfingen
824. Singapore
825. Sion
826. Sissach
827. Sittard
828. Soest
829. Soest
830. Solothurn
831. South_Brent
832. Southampton
833. Speyer
834. Spiez
835. Spijkenisse
836. St._Gallen
837. St._Pölten
838. St_Albans
839. St_Austell
840. Stade
841. Stafa
842. Stans
843. Stansstad
844. Starrkirch-Will
845. Stavanger
846. Steffisburg
847. Steinbach
848. Steinen
849. Steinhausen
850. Steyr
851. Stockholm
852. Strasburg
853. Stroud
854. Stutensee
855. Stuttgart
856. Süßen
857. Suhr
858. Sundbyberg
859. Sundsvall
860. Sursee
861. Suszligen
862. Swansea
863. Sydney
864. Syracuse_NY
865. Therwil
866. Thun
867. Thusis
868. Thyholm
869. Tibro
870. Tiel
871. Tierp
872. Tilburg
873. Titisee-Neustadt
874. Tofino
875. Tokyo
876. Topsham
877. Torino
878. Tornesch
879. Toronto
880. Toulouse
881. Traverse_City
882. Trèves
883. Trimbach
884. Trondheim
885. Trubach
886. Tübingen
887. Turbenthal-Wila
888. Turgi
889. Turnhout
890. Ulm
891. Umeå
892. Umkirch
893. Unna
894. Uppsala
895. Urdorf
896. Uster
897. Utrecht
898. Uznach
899. Uzwil
900. Valby
901. Vancouver
902. Vancouver_Island
903. Vänersborg
904. Vantaa
905. Varberg
906. Varik
907. Västerås
908. Vaxholm
909. Växjö
910. Veenendaal
911. Veldhoven
912. Veltheim
913. Venis
914. Venlo
915. Vevey
916. Victoria
917. Vienna
918. Viernheim
919. Villach
920. Vinterviken
921. Viskafors
922. Vlaardingen
923. Volketswil
924. Voorburg
925. Voorhout
926. Vught
927. Wabern
928. Wadenswil
929. Wageningen
930. Waiblingen
931. Wald
932. Wallisellen
933. Waltrop
934. Warnsveld
935. Washington_DC
936. Wattenscheid
937. Wattwil
938. Weert
939. Weesp
940. Weinfelden
941. Weingarten
942. Weinheim
943. Weiz
944. Wels
945. Wettenberg
946. Wetter
947. Wettingen
948. Wetzikon
949. Wetzlar
950. Wezep
951. Whistler
952. Wiener_Neustadt
953. Wiesbaden
954. Wiesendangen
955. Wiesloch
956. Wijchen
957. Wijk bij duurstede
958. Will
959. Willisau
960. Winchester
961. Winterswijk
962. Winterthur
963. Witten
964. Wittenbach
965. Wittenberg
966. Witzenhausen
967. Woerden
968. Wognum
969. Wolfenbuttel
970. Wolfurt
971. Wolhusen
972. Worb
973. Worcester
974. Worms
975. Wunstorf
976. Wuppertal
977. Wurtzbourg
978. Yeovil
979. Yokohama
980. York
981. Yverdon
982. Zaandam
983. Zagreb
984. Zaltbommel
985. Zeist
986. Zevenaar
987. Zoetermeer
988. Zoeterwoude-dorp
989. Zoeterwoude-rijndijk
990. Zofingen
991. Zollikerberg
992. Zollikofen
993. Zuchwil
994. Zug
995. Zurich
996. Zutphen
997. Zweisimmen
998. Zwijndrecht
999. Zwischenwasser
1000. Zwolle

Oh dear. That’s not quite one thousand, is it? Well, stay tuned. We are today putting this (2008) list before our 459 World Carshare colleagues, and I am sure that they will help us add to these numbers in no time flat. But that’s nt really the point.

What we would really like you to do is to take a few minutes to check out if and how you can carshare in your community. Nothing there yet? Well let’s work on it together. Write an email about that and address it to World Carshare at WorldCarShare@yahoogroups.com and you just may receive some useful counsel on what to do about it. (See map for incoming traffic on World Carshare this morning.)

In reviewing this long list prior to publication yesterday, Conrad Wagner of Mobility Systems in Switzerland and a long time carshare hand and an active international consultant in the field, made the point that our list as it stands is very curious to the extent that it includes both mega capitals like New York, Tokyo, London and Paris, and at the same time a host of very small communities. That’s correct and in a future article we will dig into our records and organize by country at least.

But this brings up an important observation. More than half of these “cities” are pretty small places in the Netherlands and Switzerland, some with only a couple of hundred inhabitants. Which makes a very interesting point that seems often to escape even the carshare specialists. And that is that carsharing can work in a community of any size. And that’s why we call it . . .

CarSharing: The last nail in the coffin of old mobility.

— Carsharing – it is really carsharings since there are a wide range of ways of going about it – is part of a much broader approach to resolving the problems of climate and sustainable transport in cities and communities around the world. What are the rest? Well, you probably know a number of them but stay tuned. World Streets will not deceive.

Query? Whatever happened to road hierarchy?

The following open question on the present status of “road hierarchy” uses and standards for planning just in from Stephen Marshall of the Bartlett School of Planning, UCL – and right up the middle of the street (as it were) of our concerns here. Full contact information follows. You are invited to post your responses directly to him, but it would be good for all here if you could also register it just below as a Comment to this posting. We hope to report on this in due course as the results come in.

Dear all

Following Manual for Streets and other local streets-oriented design guidance, where does this leave road hierarchy?

By road hierarchy I mean the conventional set of road types such as Primary Distributor, District Distributor, Local Distributor, Access Road.

I am asking this list because it can be difficult to track how this is actually used, through published documents, since a document may not mention hierarchy explicitly, but it may still be applied in some way. Or, even if mentioned in a document, it is not always clear how practitioners actually use it, when designing a road network.

I am interested in hearing of any cases where:

(i) Road hierarchy is still used – even if not expressed explicitly in documents – if so, how is it applied?

(ii) Road hierarchy has ‘evolved’ where there may be new road types added over and above the basic set – if so, what are they?

(iii) There is more than one set of guidance coexisting (e.g.
conventional engineering guidance + urban design guidance) – if so, is the relationship between the two clear and consistent, and how are they actually applied in practice?

(iv) Urban design style street types are used, but are expected (implicitly or explicitly) to correspond to levels in the conventional hierarchy (e.g. a Boulevard may be equate with a District Distributor; a Mews may be an Access Road) – if so, how does this work?

(v) Road hierarchy is applied to the “higher levels” (e.g. trunk roads, county roads) while the lower level use a range of labels (e.g. access street, high street, etc.) – if so, how is the high/low level split decided?

(vi) Road hierarchy is no longer used – if so, what if anything has replaced it?

I would be interested in hearing of any examples of these instances, and how they work, especially in the UK (e.g. local authority practice), but also non-UK examples where the equivalent of road hierarchy applies.

I will let the list know of any interesting results coming out of this. This is part of an investigation into better integration / articulation of road / street hierarchy / layout principles. This research is part of the EPSRC funded project SOLUTIONS (Sustainability Of Land Use and Transport in Outer NEighbourhoodS).

Stephen Marshall, Senior Lecturer, ucftsma@UCL.AC.UK
Bartlett School of Planning, University College London
Wates House, 22 Gordon Street, London WC1H 0QB,
Tel +44 20 7679 4884, Fax +44 20 7679 7502

Message from the USA: Change way we finance infrastructure based on efficiency model

Change way we finance infrastructure based on efficiency model:

Change the way we finance infrastructure based on the efficiency model that CA has applied to energy- By tier pricing energy after a sustainable limit, California was able to reduce the demand and not build additional supply or extend the grid. Demand is managed with price signals. New distributed generation by private producers have also reduced demand. Much more efficiency is available in the system.

We should use the same model for all infrastructure including transport from roads to rail to ports. The goal would be to reduce green house gases and allow economic activity to adjust to new transportation costs. Allow a sustainable limit- buses and 3 plus occupant cars are the lowest cost tier.

After that everyone pays more, with the SOV being the highest. On trains charge higher prices during the commute period. Ships pay more based on dock time. Use the revenue, it must be substantial, for self-sufficient transport modes enhancement and low income bus service on a sustainable hierarchy- walking enhancements get the most money followed by bicycling, etc.

Pricing is adjusted to make demand meet GHG goals.

URL Ref. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869224-3,00.html

Gladwyn d’Souza, godsouza@mac.com,
Coalition for Alternatives in Transportation, http://www.catsmeo.org ,
San Mateo County, CA, United States of America