Institute for Transportation and Development Policy

Promoting sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide

E-Scooters Could be a Last-Mile Solution for Everyone

Like docked and dockless bikeshare before them, dockless electric “kick” scooters are taking off in popularity, responding to a strong and growing need for urban car alternatives like transit and “last mile” connections. As part of a menu of urban transportation options, scooters have the potential to reduce short-distance, single occupancy vehicle and TNC (Transportation Network Company, e.g. Uber, Lyft, Via) trips, reducing urban congestion and emissions. Scooters provide a low cost, flexible mobility option for short trips, particularly those connected to transit. Bikes have long provided an excellent option for last-mile trips, and they continue to do so. However, the popularity, and user-friendliness of e-scooters may offer an even easier option for the first and last mile.

Scooters, particularly e-scooters, offer an option that pretty much anyone, regardless of fitness or ability, can ride for short trips. As with shared bikes, cities have an opportunity to leverage scooters, and other privately-operated, shared modes in a way that more directly encourages their use in coordination with transit. For example, cities could work with operators to subsidize scooter and bikeshare rides that start or end at transit using common payment options. This level of targeted integration benefits cities by expanding access to transit at a relatively low cost per mile (compared to building new stations, adding buses, etc.), benefits users by making sustainable, multi-modal trips more streamlined and affordable, and benefits companies by establishing a loyal, diverse customer base.

Scooters, bikes, and other technology-enabled shared modes have a role to play in shifting the paradigm away from personal car ownership. Cities can take advantage of this opportunity by understanding the demand for car-alternatives for short trips, and setting smart, goal-oriented regulations that help address that demand. Data from Portland’s scooter pilot shows that 34% of resident scooter riders would have otherwise driven a personal car or taken a taxi or TNC if a scooter hadn’t been available for their most recent trip. While this is promising support for scooters helping to reduce car trips, the data also indicates that 37% of respondents would have otherwise walked if a scooter wasn’t available. When asked how often they rode a scooter to or from a transit stop, 61% responded ‘never’. These last two data points underscore the need for cities to ensure that scooters support public transit, walking and cycling, instead of competing with these modes.

Photo Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pbotinfo/44665532241

Scooter riders during Portland Bureau of Transport e-scooter event

More, and longer-term data on scooter trips could help cities decide whether scooters are, in fact, providing a first-last mile connection to transit, substituting car trips, or pushing pedestrians and cyclists away from biking and walking.

 

Funding the Last-Mile Solution

Cities are now more prepared for the “ask forgiveness, not permission” attitude of privately-operated mobility services, and are responding to the unpermitted launch of e-scooters much more quickly and systematically than with transportation network companies like Uber, or even dockless bikeshare companies. While a few cities have outright banned scooters, most have launched pilots to test regulations and evaluate potential for long-term integration of scooters into the transportation network. In some cases, such as in Austin, Denver, and Los Angeles, cities are moving to combine permitting of dockless bikes, e-bikes, and e-scooters under a common regulatory scheme.

Other cities are taking more concrete steps to improve scooter and bike riders’ comfort on the street by requiring private operators to help fund infrastructure and other road safety improvements. Indianapolis is the first city to require scooter operators to pay $1 per scooter per day into a fund for road safety improvements for cyclists and scooter riders. Scooter operator, Bird, has volunteered to pay a similar amount for infrastructure improvements in other cities (many of which have been hesitant to accept Bird’s offer) however, some reportedly do not have a process in place to accept this type of funding from the private sector. Regardless, this new model of collaboration between cities and private companies to fund projects that make choosing a scooter or bike as a last-mile solution safer could prove successful, as long as cities are clear about what their goals are and why they are asking companies to share costs.

Encouraging the use of dockless scooters as a first-last mile option could also help connect people living further from the city center to public transit. Residents who live in outer neighborhoods tend to have fewer transit options, and likely require both a first and last mile solution for their trip. These residents stand to benefit the most from improved access to reliable, affordable first-last mile options.

Cities and e-scooter operators have an opportunity to learn from bikeshare by recognizing the demand – especially in neighborhoods further from downtown – for low-cost, reliable transportation options that aren’t private vehicles. It’s also critical for cities to realize their role in supporting sustainable transport like bikeshare and e-scootershare with protected infrastructure that can serve cyclists and scooters well, along with cost-effective and convenient connections with transit. Technology and private capital offer cities great tools to improve the lives of their residents, and taking full advantage of these tools means making space on our streets for many mobility options: scooters, bikes, transit, and shared vehicles all have a role to play in a healthy, vibrant transport system.

For more on e-scooters, check out our post: Scooters Are Not A Public Safety Crisis, but Cars Still Are

The Electric Revolution Begins with Buses


Photo Source

The first in a four-part series on electric buses done in partnership with the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) and ITDP.

Clean air has become a rare commodity in the 21st century. Today nine out of ten people breathe unhealthy air, according to the World Health Organization, resulting in dire consequences. Annual global mortality from ambient particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone exposure has increased 24 percent since 1990. Meanwhile global average temperatures in 2017 were 1.17 degrees C above pre-industrial temperatures, second only to 2016 temperatures. The warming component of climate change has contributed to massive wildfires like those that afflicted California in November, in turn causing dismal air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The transportation sector is a major contributor to these twin problems of poor air quality and climate change. In a major polluted city like Beijing, vehicles are now the largest single contributor to ambient particulate matter, reaching 45 percent of total pollutants in 2017. Globally, transportation emission sources contribute up to 23% of average ozone exposure and 12% of average PM2.5 exposure. In 2010, the transport sector was responsible for 23 percent of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. We can address these challenges in the near-term  with a two-pronged strategy. First, we can initiate an immediate transition to the cleanest soot-free engines, while developing and implementing in parallel an operational shift to low-carbon, zero-emission, electric-drive engines.

More than 80% of all buses use older diesel engines and high sulfur fuel.

Bus fleets are the right place for cities to start the electric revolution. Buses already provide some of the absolute lowest carbon dioxide emissions per passenger-kilometer.  Because more than 80 percent of all buses use older diesel engines and high sulfur fuel, the global bus fleet is responsible for an estimated 15 percent of all particulate matter emissions from on-road transportation.  The International Association of Public Transport (UITP) has set a goal to double the market share of public transit by 2025 in support of international climate change targets. While this target is an effective low-carbon policy on its own, which will require a large increase in bus fleets, at a minimum, bus fleets need to quickly shift to soot-free diesel and gas engines to mitigate hazardous outdoor air pollution as investments in bus fleets expand. A better approach is to leapfrog vehicle technology by operating on zero-emission electric engines, which expand the climate mitigation potential of public transit, improve urban air quality, and increase the quality of public transit service.

Fortunately, bus fleets have operational characteristics that favor the introduction of new technologies, particularly electric drive engines, both to reduce risk and enable broader uptake throughout the rest of the fleet. Bus fleets are publicly regulated, they are centrally fueled, and they receive professional servicing and maintenance. Dedicated electric-drive engines are orders of magnitude more efficient than internal combustion diesel or gas engines

That superior performance has been proven by on-road experience with Foothill Transit, a public transit agency in Southern California that is in the process of converting to a fleet of electric buses by 2030. Currently, the agency operates 14 buses from California-based manufacturer Proterra that are eight times more fuel efficient than the conventional compress natural gas buses operating in the fleet, according to the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Foothill Transit in southern California is introducing electric buses to its fleet.
Image Source: CalTransit

Foothill Transit serves a small population on the eastern fringe of the Los Angeles metropolitan area, but all-electric bus transitions are gaining speed in big cities around the world, including all-electric pioneer Shenzhen, as well as planned roll outs across North America in San Francisco, California and Windsor, Ontario. In October 2017, the mayors of London, Paris, Los Angeles, Copenhagen, Barcelona, Quito, Vancouver, Mexico City, Milan, Seattle, Auckland, and Cape Town signed the C40 Fossil-Fuel-Free Streets Declaration to procure only zero-emission buses from 2025 forward, a pledge for which electric buses will play a key role.

While energy efficiency is paramount, electric buses also provide a better experience for the passenger, as their quiet motors offer a more pleasant ride over their noisy diesel counterparts. They also have fringe benefits for operators. With far lower maintenance costs, electric-drive buses have the potential to deliver lower costs over the lifetime of the vehicle, thus decreasing the costs of providing public transport service. But transit agencies need direct subsidies or changes to their financing models in order to cover the much higher upfront cost of transitioning their fleets to the electric buses. The specifics of that transition, meanwhile, mean that the large-scale leapfrog to zero-emission electric buses presents some questions for fleet operators.

To be continued in part two: “What, Exactly, is an Electric Bus?”

Support ITDP and the Future of Transit

Transit is dying. In the face of decades of underinvestment and a devotion to building cities for cars, public transit is deteriorating in cities around the world. You don’t have to look hard to see evidence of transit’s decline: last year, public transit ridership dropped in 31 of 35 major U.S. cities.

With transit becoming so unreliable, frustrated city residents are turning to cars and new, unregulated car services, often by simply clicking on an app—with major repercussions for our cities and our world. A landmark report issued by the United Nations in October painted a dire portrait of humanity’s future should we fail to massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially from transport, which accounts for nearly a quarter of the world’s energy-related carbon emissions.

For too long, underinvestment and outsized attention to impractical and car-based technological “solutions” has detracted from, rather than built on, our cities’ transit systems. Now public transit is on life support and it needs your help!

As cities continue to rapidly grow, it’s more critical than ever that they commit to the best antidote to these harmful trends: fast, frequent, and well-funded public transit. Often, the steadfast options are still the best, and public transit remains the only way to move huge amounts of people quickly and sustainably.

Although ITDP is helping cities around the world embrace an inclusive approach to public transit, there is still so much to be done. Here are a just a couple of the places where your support can make a difference right now:

More Access, More Transit
To revive transit, it is not enough to just put new buses on the road; cities must provide new ways and reasons for people to leave their cars and hop on board. ITDP is helping Yichang, China rethink what a transit corridor should be by including improvements like protected bike lanes, beautiful greenways, and regulated dockless bikeshare that provides easy and safe ways to reach the bus rapid transit (BRT) system. Now your help is needed so that more cities can create greater accessibility and better transit.

Making BRT a Reality
Bus rapid transit offers cities a fast, affordable, and flexible public transit option. ITDP is helping cities from Semarang, Indonesia to Cairo, Egypt to São Paulo, Brazil plan high quality BRT systems that cut commuting times, slash emissions, and provide mobility to hundreds of thousands of city residents. But cities and our environment won’t reap the benefits of BRT without your help turning these plans into reality.

With cities facing swift growth and our climate rapidly changing, robust public transit is a necessity. Nothing can replace the efficiency, reliability, and sustainability of public transit, and ITDP needs your support to revive this timeless solution.


Give a $40 year-end gift to ITDP today to help create thriving transit and thriving cities. >>

 

Improving BRT Systems in Latin America

Since BRT was born in Latin America in 1974 in Curitiba, Brazil, more than 20 systems have opened and are currently operating in Latin America, with key systems in Bogota and Quito now over 15 years old. Much of the focus on BRT, from advocates to planners and engineers to politicians, has traditionally been on planning and designing the BRT corridor just to reach the “ribbon-cutting” phase with little thought to sustaining operations afterwards. Cities and system operators often struggle with maintaining high-quality operations and integration in order to continue to attract ridership.

To address these issues with the region that has the most experience with BRT, ITDP convened a group of practitioners and decision makers to discuss the state of BRT from October 31- November 1, 2018 in Mexico City. This experience-sharing workshop was supported by the Transformative Urban Mobility Initiative (TUMI) and the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The workshop aimed to discover common operational problems and disseminate better BRT operation strategies that can be expanded or replicated into other systems, including in other regions such as Asia and Africa. In order to enrich the dialogue, experts and partners from WRI Brazil, WRI Mexico, BRT Center of Excellence, and 100 Resilient Cities were also invited and presented case studies, summing a total of 30 participants.

Participants at the Latin-American Experience-Sharing Workshop on BRT and Bus-Based Systems
Photos of BRT systems of cities that participated in the activity
Cities that have participated in the activity

The workshop was based on the presentation of twelve case studies by eleven different cities from six Latin American countries:

  • México City and Puebla from México
  • Belo Horizonte, Fortaleza, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo from Brazil
  • Santiago from Chile
  • Barranquilla and Bogotá from Colombia
  • Quito from Ecuador
  • Guatemala City from Guatemala

From the 12 studies, ITDP selected the cases that responded the most to the systems’ main challenges and populated the responses in the graphs seen below:

Most relevant BRT and bus-based systems challenges according to a survey conducted with over 20 Latin-American managers
(click to enlarge)

Strategies presented included solutions for operations funding, institutional integration, fare evasion, frequent bus network design, regularity on both trunk and feeder lines, and tactical interventions for improved access among others. Service regularity was the most recurring technical topic mentioned in the discussions. According to participants and experts, offering rapid services on trunk routes is not enough. Especially as new and competing transport modes arise, it is imperative that users are confident that service will be consistent from starting point to destination.  This need imposes a special challenge for trunk and feeder systems and routes that run in mixed-traffic.

A few Latin American cities are implementing strategies to combat this problem. Bogotá’s TransMilenio is working on improving the precision of inter-corridor routes’ cycle time through the use of statistical methods, while Belo Horizonte has recently deployed simple measures such as shifting  feeder routes’ control points from the neighborhoods to the terminals to guarantee on schedule departure times from terminals during peak times. São Paulo has implemented continuous operational procedures that give more control to the transit agencies instead of private operators, including advance knowledge of which bus and driver are assigned to specific routes. The BRT Centre of Excellence is testing new technologies in Santiago (and Sweden) that should make it easier for drivers to know whether they should go faster or slower in order to keep route service punctual and consistent.

Reliable service is one of the most important factors in gaining ridership and innovative and holistic approaches are necessary to achieve reliable service. However, these approaches do not always involve new technology. The city of Barranquilla invested in a culture strengthening program that allocated staff to system stations.  The staff provided educational information for the users regarding fare media usage, respecting the system preferential seats, and queueing in stations. The program used this educational approach instead of simply enforcing and fining bad behavior, resulting in reduced fare evasion and vandalism to the system. Guatemala converted important streets near the BRT main stations into pedestrian-only, improving access, facilitating commercial activities and services to flourish and improve security. Learning from the implementation of the first Metrobus, Mexico City started to implement a series of improvements for pedestrian access to new corridor stations. During the workshop, participants visited the thriving areas around Metrobus lines 3 and 4 in downtown Mexico City.

The road to reliable, seamlessly integrated and attractive BRT and bus-based systems is complex and multidisciplinary. The convening of high-level BRT and bus system managers from key Latin-American cities where these systems are more mature represents a unique opportunity to improve operational strategies to increase the longevity of the BRT systems. With participants’ know-how, specially tailored peer exchanges, and international experts’ inputs, the workshop allowed decision makers to increase their ability to advance on their own technical and governance issues. At the same time, conclusions distilled from the discussions will also prove beneficial to systems operating in other world regions in subsequent years. The workshop was a small but important step on the road to global BRT system transformation that highlighted the necessity to continue the development of spaces for dialogue between different entities involved in the planning, implementing, and operating public transport systems to guarantee the development of more sustainable and inclusive cities and metropolitan regions around the world.

[WEBINAR] BRT Planning 701: Technology

Wednesday, December 5, 2018
11am EST

 

Webinar Recording

 

Presentation Slides

BRT Planning 701: Technology

 

About the Webinar

The last installment of the BRT Planning Guide Webinar series will present key recommendations for ITS design for BRT Operations for transport officials and public administrations. With the integration of “smart city” technologies in BRT systems, our hosts will discuss fleet monitoring and bus management systems, fare collection, and user information. Lastly, they will review the critical phase of tendering, contract management, implementation, operation, and long-term maintenance and exploitation.

 

About the Presenters

Giorgio Ambrosino | Director of MemEx

Giorgio Ambrosino is the Director of MemEx, an independent engineering company specialised in Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), Urban Passenger Transport, Integrated Mobility Services, City Logistics and Smart City supporting a large number of European, Regional and Local Authorities and Transport Executives. For over 30 years Giorgio has been involved in planning, design, implementation, operation and evaluation of wide number of projects like, among the others:  Real Time Passenger Information Systems, Bus fleet control and monitoring, Integrated Ticketing system, Shared mobility platform, Access control and Parking systems, etc. As technical coordinator, Giorgio has participated in several European projects funded by R&D programmes and Regional Cooperation Initiatives. Giorgio is author of numerous technical papers and co-editor of different books on the above aspects.

 

Saverio Gini | Senior Project Manager, MemEx

Saverio Gini is a Senior Project Manager at MemEx. His expertise in the ITS sector includes electronic ticketing and the definition of innovative solutions and services for public transport and mobility (i.e. AVM, infosystems, etc.). His activity concerns the definition of user needs, management of the public tender and/or contracting of supply, testing and support in system’s deployment and launching. He is involved in the MemEx R&D activities and in international cooperation programmes (VII FP, PSP-ICT, Interreg, H2020). He is currently responsible of ITS supporting action to CIVITAS Destinations sites and responsible of Toolbox design in H2020 CIPTEC project.

Scooters Are Not A Public Safety Crisis, but Cars Still Are

Lime scooters at Portland Bureau of Transport event Photo cred: PBOT Flickr

Small, personally-operated mobility options, like bikes and scooters, have highlighted a growing demand in urban areas for convenient, inexpensive alternatives to cars. However, following two high profile fatal crashes involving e-scooters and vehicles in Dallas and Washington, DC, media coverage (and the public) has been heavily focused on the safety of these two-wheelers. Some have even characterized injuries associated with the popularity of scooters as a “public safety crisis”, and a lawsuit was filed on behalf of pedestrians injured by scooters in California, suing scooter companies for negligence. Some cities have moved to restrict maximum scooter speeds, like Washington, DC, which just recently limited speeds to 10 miles per hour.

Bird scooter rider in Washington DC

This is an overreaction that neglects putting scooter safety into perspective. Riding an e-scooter does carry some level of risk, but those risks pale in comparison to those associated with driving a car, or sharing the streets with cars. Despite the increases we’ve seen in cycling, walking, and scooters in many North American cities, the majority of urban roads are designed for vehicles often traveling at high speeds. Road crashes are the leading cause of death among 15-29 year olds worldwide, resulting in over 3,000 deaths on average per day. Until we have streets designed for all modes that actually use them: bikes, scooters, buses, pedestrians, and cars, high numbers of crashes and fatalities will continue to be the norm. Like cyclists, scooter users are often forced to ride in traffic alongside cars or on the sidewalk alongside pedestrians. In fact, capping speeds such as DC has done may actually make scooter riding less safe, since scooters won’t be able to keep pace with cyclists, and will likely be forced out of bike lanes and onto sidewalks where they intrude on pedestrian space.

The Rapid Rise of E-Scooters

Since their launch in late 2017, dockless electric “kick” scooters have sparked a range of public responses from nostalgic glee, to concerns for safety, to outright hatred. After raising significant venture capital funding, Bird was the first electric scooter company to launch and, over the next few months, several existing dockless bikeshare companies began to pivot their business models to focus primarily on e-scooters. At least a half dozen other e-scooter companies emerged during this time.

Uptake of e-scooters in the US happened fast, generating a 3.6% adoption rate (the percentage of people who have tried the service) in less than 12 months, compared to docked bikeshare schemes, which show a 13% adoption rate after eight years. Compared to dockless bikes (excluding pedal assist offerings), dockless scooters have generated, on average, significantly more total trips, as shown in the chart below, and more trips per vehicle per day.

Despite e-scooter companies modeling their business after bikeshare, these trip numbers make the economics of e-scooter operation more viable than dockless bikes, with each scooter paying for itself in a matter of weeks (4-8 by some estimates) instead of months. At this level of return, investors are keenly interested in the success of scooters, and continue to pump billions of dollars of funding into the industry. In fact, after less than one year of operations, Bird became the fastest company ever to reach a valuation of $1 billion (known in the venture capital world as a “unicorn”) – faster than Uber, Facebook, Twitter and other tech giants. Concerns abound, however, about the long-term sustainability (from a profit perspective) of the private scootershare and bikeshare business models, particularly when maintenance, charging, rebalancing and other operating costs associated with high-quality service are taken into account.

By the later half of 2018, scooter companies began eyeing markets outside of the US. Lime operates in six European cities, two cities in New Zealand, and launched in Mexico City in October. A Mexican scooter company, Grin, also provides service in Mexico City. Bird operates in six European cities including London, Madrid and Paris, as well as in Israel.

Lime scooter rider in Portland, Oregon. Photo cred: Ian Sane, Flickr
Grin scooter rider in Mexico Photo cred: lavca.org
Bird Scooter rider in Baltimore, Maryland Photo cred: Elvert Barnes, Flickr
Lime scooter riders in New Zealand. Photo cred: NZ Herald

Make the Streets Safer for All Modes

Investing in infrastructure that protects scooter and cyclists is key to supporting and growing these car alternatives, as is clearly communicating to users safe riding behavior and where scooters are and are not permitted to be ridden. Recognizing that most streets, in their current car-centric form, are inherently unsafe for non-car users, cities must commit to street design that is inclusive and safe for all modes, and they must commit to enforcing these rules. Bike lanes are only useful if you can actually bike in them without the obstacles of parked cars, delivery trucks, and even pedestrians.

As cities have notoriously tight budgets, many are testing solutions for generating revenue that supports sustainable modes (and, in some cases, charging polluting modes for their negative impacts). Mexico City’s tax on TNC trips, which supports cycling and walking improvements; Portland’s use of state gas taxes to build protected bike lanes; and Chicago’s use of tax increment financing (TIF) to fund streetscape improvements including protected bike lanes are just a few examples. E-scooter operator, Bird, has offered to pay cities in which they operate to improve and build new bike lanes. Indianapolis is the first city to require all scooter operators to pay into a fund for road safety improvements that benefit cyclists and scooter riders.

Whether you think e-scooters are the best or the worst thing to ever happen to cities, their popularity demonstrates how great the need is for diverse transport options that serve all types of trips. People want to get around cities in ways other than a private car, and city governments should do everything they can to make those options convenient, safe, and connected to each other.

For more on e-scooters, check out our post: E-Scooters Could be a Last-Mile Solution for Everyone

Paving the Way for Cyclists in Cairo

Actual photo of downtown Cairo (top) and a rendering with proposed pedestrian and cycling walkways (bottom).

Greater Cairo, a megacity of approximately 18 million, faces daunting traffic jams and severely polluted air. Responding to the city’s transport challenges, the Cairo governorate (an administrative region, similar to a state or province), in partnership with the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), Drosos Foundation, and ITDP Africa, are planning a bicycle sharing system for central Cairo. In its first phase, the system will have approximately 700 cycle lanes spread across the downtown area. Bicycle sharing has the potential to improve accessibility by extending the reach of the metro and bus systems and provide a low-cost option for short trips.

Critical to the success of the bicycle sharing system is the provision of safe cycle routes in the downtown area. Toward this end, the Cairo governorate has begun the planning process for a network of protected bicycle lanes and safer intersections. On August 16, 2018, the governorate, UN-Habitat, and ITDP organized “Towards Integrated Mobility in Cairo,” an interactive stakeholder workshop aimed at developing bike lane designs for central Cairo. The workshop brought together officials from the Traffic Departments in the Cairo and Giza governorates, New Urban Communities Authority (NUCA), Ministry of Housing and Urban Utilities, traffic impact consultant SETS, and other agencies together with street design expert Michael King.

The live exercise at Mohamed Farid Square introduced a temporary cycle lane and wider pedestrian islands.
A bread-toting cyclist passes through a demo bike lane along Mohamed Farid Street in Cairo.

After an introductory session on the fundamentals of complete street design, the workshop included a field exercise in Mohamed Farid Square in downtown Cairo. Participants set up a live demonstration of bike lanes using cones to assess the impacts for motor vehicles and cyclists. The field exercise received positive feedback from all attendees. Even as the team introduced wider pedestrian refuge islands and dedicated cycle lanes, traffic continued to make its way through the intersection without any noticeable slow-downs.

To conclude, participants toured downtown to view newly renovated buildings and streets recently pedestrianized by the Cairo governorate. Representatives from the governorate explained their goal of further expanding the pedestrian network in downtown Cairo. Following the field exercise, Khalil Shaat, Director of Slum Upgrading in the Cairo governorate, pointed out that the government aims to reduce the number of cars in the city. Mr. Shaat also stressed that the implementation of the project will involve awareness campaigns to build citizen support for the project. ITDP looks forward to supporting the Cairo governorate during the roll-out of the bikeshare system and bicycle infrastructure over the coming year.

Learn more about ITDP Africa here.

[Interactive Timeline] How Mexico City Became a Leader in Parking Reform

ITDP has been working to reform parking policies worldwide for over a decade as a way to shift cities toward sustainable transport. In July 2017, Mexico City Mayor Miguel Ángel Mancera announced changes in the construction code that would curtail the development of further off-street parking development. The new norm changes minimum parking requirements to maximums and puts Mexico City, the largest city in North America, far ahead of other cities in its commitment to prioritizing people over cars.

This major policy change is a result of ITDP Mexico’s advocacy over the last 10 years, when the team began working with government agencies to develop alternatives to the private car, as well as mechanisms to reduce its use. With the support of the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing (SEDUVI), the research study “Less Parking, More City,” provided enough evidence to show unsustainable trends of constructing buildings for cars, ultimately sending people to live in the periphery.  We illustrated the 10 year journey in our new interactive timeline.

‘Less Parking, More City’ Timeline >>

 

 

[WEBINAR] BRT Planning 501: Integration


Presented on
Tuesday, October 30, 2018

 

About the Webinar

This is the fifth installment of the BRT Planning Guide webinar series. A key component of BRT planning and design is the provision of convenient and secure access for pedestrians and cyclists. This webinar will explore the fundamentals of designing non-motorized transport access, including pedestrian crossings, sidewalks, universal access, cycle tracks, and cycle parking, drawing on case studies from BRT systems around the world.

 

Webinar Recording

 

Webinar Presentation Slides

BRT Planning 501: Integration

 

About the Presenter

Chris Kost | Program Director, ITDP Africa

Chris Kost is the Program Director of ITDP Africa and leads ITDP’s initiatives in Kenya, Uganda, and other African countries. At ITDP, Chris focuses on transport projects in Africa and in the past, in India as well. In Cape Town, Accra, and Johannesburg, he assessed the impacts of proposed BRT systems on greenhouse gas emissions. Chris has been involved in a number of TOD projects, including the Local Area Plan for Ahmedabad’s Central Business District, an updated TOD policy for BRT corridors in Pimpri Chinchwad, TOD planning efforts for Chennai’s metro and suburban rail networks, and TOD elements in Nashik’s new Development Plan. Before ITDP, Chris worked for the Transportation and Land Use Coalition (now Transform) in Oakland; the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, also in Oakland; the City of Berkeley’s Planning Department; Meyer, Mohadddes Associates, Los Angeles; and Delin Consult in Accra. Chris received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in environmental policy from the Earth Systems Program at Stanford University.

Which Comes First, Pilot or Policy?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Kigali, the capital and largest city of Rwanda, has become known as a best practice for urbanism and sustainable transport in Africa. The city of one million, in the mountainous center of the small, landlocked nation, has made major, transformational changes over the past decade. Regulated moto taxis and a city bus system were improved further with the 2016 Smart Kigali initiative, and there are car-free Sundays twice every month. Street improvement measures include everything from beautification to quality footpaths and fully pedestrianized areas of the city center.

Alphonse Nkurunziza at the MOBILIZE summit in Dar es Salaam

Alphonse Nkurunziza, former City of Kigali Chief Engineer, recently took part in a meeting of African City leaders as part of the Transformative Urban Mobility Initiative gathering at ITDP’s MOBILIZE Summit in Dar es Salaam. In speaking with city officials from Lagos, Kampala, and Kitwe eager to replicate Kigali’s successes, Nkurunziza advised them to take action and make the needed changes in their cities. “You have to begin. You don’t need to wait for a policy document. You just have to begin, and people will appreciate what you are doing,” he said. “This is how we did the transition of the CBD. We had to close 500 meters, only pedestrian, that was quite tough … but it worked! People are admiring it. People love it.”

Despite having the major benefit of strong political will, both from the city and national governments, Kigali has chosen to rapidly transform areas of the city with demonstration projects, allowing the reality on the ground to dictate policy, rather than the other way around. This approach has major advantages, particularly when it comes to public support.

Community funded footpath in Kitwe

Kitwe, Zambia mayor Christopher Kang’ombe has also found success with a pilot of sorts. Frustrated with the lack of progress on footpaths, Kang’ombe mobilized businesses to pay directly for footpaths, which are added meter by meter as funds are raised. He hopes that by demonstrating how popular these paths are, the national government will integrate them into road planning, and fund pedestrian and cycling infrastructure more comprehensively. “The level of political competition in most countries has led to a bit of change in the way politicians view development. At first, we used think, ‘oh, if I move these vendors from the street, I’ll lose an election’. You’re forgetting that the majority will like what you do. It’s a game of numbers, real numbers. So in terms of political will, the politicians are changing now. We’re now looking at what would be good for the city from the perspective of long term.”

Transforming blocks, neighborhoods, and cities from car-oriented to people-centered is at the core of ITDP’s decades of work in cities around the world. One of the first, most basic challenges to improving cities is that everyone, no matter where they live, is suspicious of change. There is no getting around the fact that transport and development projects are political processes, and public support matters. Pilot projects are an incredibly useful tool, not only to evaluate feasibility, time, cost, adverse events, and improve upon the study design prior to implementation of a full-scale project, but also simply to show residents how much the project will improve their commute, street, block, or neighborhood. If a picture is worth 1,000 words, a well-executed pilot is worth 1,000 feasibility studies.

Yet this approach is not without risk. Pilots are, by nature, first tries at something new. Any problems, no matter how minor, can be used to derail the project completely, giving credit to adversaries who are usually ready to pounce. Also, even if the pilot is successful, it sets expectations for a larger project, and cities have to be ready to move forward while the momentum is on their side. Ideally, this would be solved by having a policy framework in place to enable tweaks, and a speedy rollout.

Traffic in Lagos, Nigeria

Olajide Oduyoye, the Head of Transport Safety and Traffic Management for the Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority (LAMATA), is well aware of the political obstacles standing in the way of much-needed transport improvements to the Nigerian megacity, and sees the value of getting something to happen on the ground. “Political leaders are under extreme pressure to satisfy all these different needs. As political persons, they are more likely to look at things that people would appreciate in the very short term. Most politicians want to leave a mark, to prove that they have not wasted their time in office, and in order to continue in power.”

Oduyoye cautions, however, that an isolated pilot could backfire, using the example of a cycling project in a high-crime area of Lagos. “There may be financial support available that may also influence the decision to install a pilot before other larger changes are made that would make the project viable. However, there is that conflict where you have political support, you have financial support, but you’re coming up with a pilot scheme to make the economics work. If you’re going to an area where there is a safety perception issue for you not to want to ride the bike, then the business will fail. And if it fails as a pilot, how do you make this change?”

Jennifer Musisi speaking at the MOBILIZE summit in Dar es Salaam

Jennifer Musisi, Executive Director of the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA), Uganda, also raised concerns that de-emphasizing the policy process leads to decisions being made based on the needs of the private sector, rather than the majority of the population. “These ‘stakeholders’ as we call them in Uganda, are demanding that the government should do something. And then us as the technical people are saying, ‘we don’t think we should go that way’, but their voices are sometimes so loud, that government then says ‘ok, its causing them a financial problem, so it’s now a policy to accommodate their need.’ Its people really just looking at their own small world and proposing that government come up with a solution to the problems of their small world. But us as the technical policy makers – how does this one group fit into the six other groups that I’m looking at?”

No matter which is first, it’s clear that both policy guidance and on-the-ground demonstrations are necessary for new, transformational projects to flourish. Nkurunziza acknowledges that, particularly when it comes to national replication, more policy guidance is needed. “In Rwanda, we have six secondary cities that also are complementing Kigali. The other cities have to grow, have to understand how do they now come in a more sustainable manner. We need the support of experts in creating policies. Right now we’re doing everything piecemeal, we don’t have an NMT policy, we need to make that.”