Jul 27

Chicago Inaugurates Modest Bike-Sharing Scheme for Tourists

Chicago, transportation 2 Comments »

Schweizer Platz - Frankfurt

Bike-sharing is one of the smartest trends sweeping urban transportation planning these days. The idea is that you set up kiosks around a city where a number of bikes are parked securely. Riders use a credit card or subscription card to “check out” a bike.  They then ride it to another kiosk and drop it off.

It works great for trips less than a mile.  It is convenient (no waiting for a bus or train) and carbon neutral.

The concept has been around for several decades, but it really took off in 2007 when Paris initiated its Vélib’ system which features 20,000 bicycles and over 1500 kiosks.  Since then cities as disparate as Mexico City, Montreal, and Washington, DC have established programs (for more info on the global bike share movement, I highly recommend the Bike-Sharing Blog).

Beginning Friday, Chicago will be the latest entry into the bike sharing game.  The system has been a long-time coming.   Chicago’s Mayor Richard M. Daley is well known as being a biking enthusiast and advocate of “green” public policy.  After a visit to Paris and testing out their system in 2007, he expressed interest in bringing the concept to Chicago.

Unfortunately the system that will be inaugurated this week is too modest and too geared to tourists to have any significant impact on mobility for the vast majority of Chicagoans.

Last year, I had a group of students look into what makes a bike sharing program successful as part of an effort to give the Chicago suburb of Evanston information on the subject.  Evanston was involved in transportation master-planning and its consultants had recommended bike sharing as a program to possibly reduce congestion.

According to our preliminary research, there are a few essential elements that a bike sharing scheme must have in order to make an impact on mobility choices in a city.

  • It should be convenient.  Kiosks need to be placed near activity centers and bikes should be plentiful.  No one will use the service if it doesn’t allow them to go where they need to be and the reliable supply of bikes is essential to get people in the habit of using the service.  The activity centers need to be varied–cultural spots, residences, workplaces, shopping districts.  This allows many potential destinations as well as helps bikes circulate through the system so you don’t have all the bikes at one station during particular times of the day.
  • It should be cheap.  Bikes are one of the cheapest and most efficient forms of transportation; however, there are still costs involved (maintenance, purchase of bikes & kiosks, IT infrastructure to keep track of bikes, etc…).  The trick is to figure out a way to keep the price point at a level where it costs less for the average consumer than other forms of transportation (driving, cabs, etc…).  In order to meet these costs, many cities privatize the system.  The operators will put advertising on the bikes or–as in the case with Paris–the bike service will be part of the general outdoor advertising franchise that cities sell to billboard companies.
  • It should be integrated with other modes of transport.  Kiosks should be set up next to train & bus stations, car sharing spots, parking lots.  This allows for flexibility in movement for the user and translates into more successful system.  The picture above, for instance, was taken in Frankfurt at a place called Schweizer Platz.  The bike sharing kiosk is located at the top of the steps of a U-Bahn station and at the corner of a tram line.  At this spot you can transfer from bike-to-tram, bike-to-U-Bahn, etc…

So how does Chicago measure up on this metric?  The main problem–at this point–is that the system is extremely small and is not integrated with a wide variety of activity centers.  There are only 6 full-service kiosks where you can drop off and pick up a bike.  Three of them are (more or less) strictly tourist destinations (Buckingham Fountain, the Field Museum, McCormick Place).  For those readers unfamiliar with Chicago, basically these spots are destinations with a single use.  The number of residencies and work places near these kiosks is small.   You are not likely to see the bike share displace many higher-carbon trips since the kiosks are essentially inconvenient.

The cost is another factor.  A temporary pass costs $10 for the first hour and $5 for each subsequent 30 minutes.  You can also get a monthly membership that costs $35 which gives you the first hour free and charges $2.50 for each subsequent 30 minutes.

This is way too expensive and is further evidence that the scheme is designed primarily for tourists who may be willing to pay more for a pleasant bike ride on the city’s lakefront.  Most schemes that are designed to be integral parts of a city’s transport system have a very small up-front cost.  London’s new bike share program (which also starts on Friday) is not only much bigger, but only charges 1 pound for a single day pass with free usage for the first half hour.

As a point of comparison, in Chicago, lets say I work at the Daley Center and want to eat lunch at the Field Museum (no one would ever want to do this by the way, but that’s where the kiosks are).  I would check out a bike for $10, ride the mile or so to the museum in about 15 minutes.  I would check the bike in at the Museum.  After my hour lunch, I would have to check out a new bike for another $10 at the Museum for the return trip to Daley Plaza.  Twenty bucks to go out to the museum for lunch!    Of course, if I had a monthly pass, the $35 that I pay each month would cover both rides.  But because there are only 6 kiosks, I would not be likely to buy a monthly pass.

In London, lets say I get off a train at St. Pancras.  I pay £1 access fee and check out a bike, ride it the 1.5 miles to the British Museum in about 15 minutes.  I hang out in the museum for an hour, check out another bike and take another 15 minute ride to Hyde Park.  Later on, I can check out another bike and ride up to Kensington, etc… For that initial £1, riders get unlimited short rides.

Finally, Chicago’s scheme comes up short as a practical transport alternative because of the lack of integration with the city’s public transit system.   There are a couple of kiosks that are within a block or two from the city’s subway system, but the major Metra commuter rail stations are about a mile away from the nearest kiosk!   The system will be useless for the thousands of commuters who travel into the city center from the city’s western and northern suburbs.

I understand that this is essentially a demonstration project.  However, because it doesn’t even make an attempt to link with the destinations that everyday residents use, it is hard to get too excited about it.  A better model for the city to follow would have been Washington DC, where a small program began in 2008 that linked a couple of select neighborhoods with the city center.  The program was so successful that the District of Columbia is expanding the system to include all of the wards in the city as well as neighboring Arlington, Virginia, creating the first regional scheme in the United States.

Chicago could also learn from Mexico City, which recently started a small neighborhood system in Condesa.  The first stage of the scheme in Condesa began with 85 stations with plans for expansion.

At this stage, it is a bit premature to call Chicago’s experiment a proper bike-sharing scheme in the sense that it will enhance mobility options for the city’s residents.  Rather, it is a nice tourist amenity to help our visitors enjoy the lakefront and our cultural assets.

Update [28 Jul. 2010 1:23pm]

After my initial post, I came across this article by the Active Transportation Alliance explaining the origins of the scheme.  It is not a municipal project.  Rather it is an outgrowth of Bike Chicago–a private firm that rents bikes at various locales along the lakefront.  [They also run the dreaded Segway tours that clog downtown sidewalks & bikepaths--please, no Segway sharing schemes!]

I assumed the city was involved given the fact that they issued an RFP for a bike share program in 2007 and Mayor Daley apparently presided over the ribbon cutting ceremony yesterday for the project.

In reality this scheme is an expansion of the existing bike rental infrastructure targeting tourists and leisure users.  It is premature to call it a proper “bike sharing” program.

Jul 20

What Happens to Kyoto After 2012?

Climate No Comments »

The UN climate change secretariat released an interesting legal note today laying out what will happen to the  major legally-binding, global treaty in place to address the problem of global warming pollution beginning in 2013.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, countries have agreed to a “first commitment period” whereby most of the developed economies pledge to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.   After 2012, these countries are no longer bound by their commitments and, theoretically, can start emitting greenhouse gases  without regard to their global impact.

There were significant problems with Kyoto; namely, the emissions reductions targets are not adequate enough to stave off dramatic climatic change over the course of the next several decades and major emitters–like the United States, China, and India–are not currently covered by its provisions.

For the past several years, there have been two negotiating tracks going on to deal with Kyoto’ shortcomings.  On the one hand, those countries who have ratified Kyoto have been negotiating to improve the treaty.  But this track–the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol–excludes the United States and (currently) doesn’t ask big emitters like India and China to engage in legally-binding reductions.

The other negotiating track–the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action Under the Convention–does include the United States, China, India, and other major emitters.   The second track was established in 2007 with the thought that some type of successor agreement to Kyoto would be negotiated and that there would be a seamless transition from the Kyoto Protocol to a new legally-binding agreement.

The second track hasn’t produced much progress, so there is quite a bit of confusion as to what will happen after 2012.  Today’s note doesn’t lay out a very promising scenario.

Here are the highlights:

  • If a second commitment period (with new emissions reductions numbers) is going to begin on 1 January 2013, a final text laying out those obligations really has to be completed by the December meeting in Cancun.
  • Even if a text is agreed upon in December, it still needs to be informally accepted by three-fourths of the 143 countries which are party to the Protocol by 3 October 2012 and then ratified by domestic legislatures by the end of 2012.  This is an EXTREMELY accelerated timetable.
  • Parties could amend the Kyoto Protocol to make it easier for a second commitment period to go into force.  They could create an “opt-out” clause where it is assumed the country will accept the commitment period unless they notify the UN.  This might make it more politically viable for countries to sign on, but there still needs to be domestic buy-in before the treaty is legally-binding.
  • There could be a “provisional” amendment to the protocol with new commitments, but until it is legally ratified, it is essentially voluntary.
  • They could extend the first commitment period for a number of years.  One problem with this is that many countries have expressed a political (not legal) commitment to limit global warming to a 2 degree rise from pre-industrial levels by 2050.  Extending the first commitment emissions numbers won’t reach this goal.  It would also require an amendment to the treaty, which still poses problems with getting the requisite number of countries to ratify before 2013.

None of these options look particularly promising.  So what will happen in 2013?

  • Emissions reductions targets will no longer be required.
  • Countries will not have to submit reports to the UNFCCC on their emissions.
  • Countries will not have to maintain a registry for emissions offsets–a key point for developing countries which can use financing under the treaty for low-carbon developing projects.
  • Emissions trading markets could be disrupted

Essentially, you would have an entire architecture of emissions management–flawed as it is–fall apart.

This legal note was written to give negotiators guidance going into next month’s intersessional negotiations in Bonn.  My sense is that it is a pretty dire document–we’ll see if negotiators think so as well in a couple of weeks.

Tagged with: •
Jun 07

Boat Public Transit Scheme for Chicago?

Chicago, transportation 5 Comments »

An article in last Friday’s New York Times asks the question: why doesn’t New York City have more ferries?  The Staten Island Ferry is probably the most well known; and, of course, there is the popular water taxi from Wall Street to the Ikea in Red Hook, Brooklyn.  But in a high-density urban area surrounded by water, the author argues that the water transportation potential is underutilized.

The New York City Economic Development Corporation is currently putting together a “Comprehensive Citywide Ferry Study,” which should provide some guidance on expanding water transportation in the city.

I’ve always thought that here in Chicago water transportation options could be a fruitful area for reducing congestion and for expanding mobility options.  In particular, the Chicago River and its tributaries could be used in this regard.  Currently there are a couple of water taxi services that connect the main commuter rail stations on the west Loop with Michigan Avenue and Chinatown.  But aside from the water taxis, passenger travel on the river is limited to private boats and tours.

I am sure there are engineering, navigational, and health and safety issues that would need to be squared away before expanding passenger travel on the river, but below I’ve put together a “back of the napkin” map of an ideal route.

Docks are situated at 1.5-2 mile intervals.  In some areas the docks would serve neighborhoods with limited access to the rapid transit system while in others docks would be integrated with rail and bus to enhance mulitmodality.

I’m not sure about the timing or what sort of craft would be viable, but theoretically you could travel from the northern suburb of Evanston to downtown Chicago in a little more than an hour–making it competitive with local trains.  The greatest potential would be for the north side Chicago neighborhoods where boat transit could be integrated with neighborhood commercial districts in areas like Logan Square/Lincoln Square, North/Clybourn, or Lincoln/Peterson.

For a full page view, follow this link.

Tagged with:
May 31

Dispatch From Bonn

Climate Comments Off

Maritim Hotel, Bonn, site of the UN Climate Talks

Today marks the beginning of the first major international climate talks since last December’s meeting in Copenhagen. That meeting, of course, ended in a storm of controversy and uncertainty with the United States hailing its non-binding political declaration as a “breakthrough” and much of the rest of the world expressing disappointment that there was not a legally binding agreement to deal with the climate crisis.

The United States has always maintained that the Copenhagen Accord is a first step on the way (perhaps) to a legal agreement, but as the weeks proceed to the next major meeting scheduled for December in Cancun, there seems to be little movement.

In Bonn, the parties will be taking up an actual negotiating text that is supposed to serve as the basis for an agreement.  However, the text does not come very close to resolving the key issues around the acceptable global temperature rise, greenhouse gas emissions reduction levels, which parties should reduce emissions, and the time line for reductions.

Additionally, the negotiations are still proceeding on two separate tracks–one involving the parties to the Kyoto Protocol (which excludes the US) that is trying to figure out how that agreement will function after the first phase of its implementation finishes in 2012 and another on “long term cooperative action” which includes the major emitters.

Fundamentally, the negotiations are at much the same stage as they were last year at this point.  Given the fact that all of the major issues are still outstanding, it is unclear what sort of progress will be made in the next two weeks in Bonn.

Tagged with: •
May 14

Logistics for Cancun Climate Negotiations: Another Copenhagen?

Climate 1 Comment »

Moon Palace Resort, Cancun, photo: Thomas J. Hartnett

Last year’s climate negotiations in Copenhagen left much to be desired.  Instead of  a comprehensive global deal with a legally-binding treaty, we saw a voluntary political agreement with weak mitigation targets.   For those who attended the negotiations, simply participating as an observer, delegate, or journalist was equally frustrating.   The venue–Copenhagen’s Bella Center–did not have the capacity to accommodate the 40,000+ attendees; and the management of the crowds was not done with much efficiency.  Many observers and media had to wait hours in the frigid Danish cold for their accreditation and subsequent access to the venue.

For the last four days of the two-week negotiations, civil society was essentially blocked from the venue, making it difficult for indigenous groups, environmental NGOs, and others to monitor and influence the talks.

As a response, civil society groups waged protests which were quelled by heavy-handed Danish police.  Both the Danish government and the UNFCCC endured criticism for the chaos that ensued and pledged to make participation smoother at the next big round of negotiations taking place in Cancun this December.

The  Mexican government recently launched the website for the conference and it is beginning to provide a glimpse of how the negotiations will be managed.

It looks as if there will be two venues: the exclusive Moon Palace Resort will hold the actual negotiations while a brand new conference center, “Cancún Messe,” will accommodate the side events and exhibitions .  The implication of this arrangement is that access to the major negotiators and decision makers can easily be restricted.  Unlike the Bella Center, which was relatively accessible via rail, Moon Palace is isolated and situated behind a bunker of golf courses, making it even easier to seal off.

This is clearly going to frustrate many civil society groups.  One of the amazing things about these UN meetings is the relative accessibility civil society has to negotiators.  Many of the country delegations meet with NGOs throughout the negotiations to hear their concerns and to provide updates about how discussions are proceeding.  In Copenhagen, once inside the Bella Center, you could basically roam freely throughout the complex as an observer, sitting in on open negotiations, visiting  countries’ temporary offices, meeting negotiators in the hallway, etc…In fact there is even one NGO that shadows negotiators to inject the process with a degree of transparency.

With two separated sites these types of interactions will be difficult to pull off.  The unfortunate result will be a lessening of transparency and public understanding of a complex and crucial political process.

Tagged with: •
May 10

Prospects for a Global Climate Deal in 2010 Not Looking Good

Climate, Copenhagen 1 Comment »

Photo of Jairam Ramesh by Matthew McDermott

The Chinese government hosted the “International Cooperative Conference on Green Economy and Climate Change” this weekend in Beijing. It brought together environment ministers and climate negotiators to discuss the way forward in global climate policy.

The press accounts suggest very little movement towards a comprehensive climate agreement. The lead Chinese negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, reiterated the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”  This, of course, is the idea that the developed countries which benefited from decades of carbon-intensive growth should take the lead in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

Much of the press from the conference centers around comments made by the Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh who admitted that discussions have essentially reached a “dead end” since the US and China won’t agree to binding emissions cuts.  He was joined in his skepticism by Danish environment minister Connie Hedegaard who said an agreement at COP16 in Mexico was not probable.

Most interesting to those following the climate negotiations were descriptions of back-door negotiations at least year’s Copenhagen conference provided by Ramesh.  Last week, Der Spiegel released a leaked audio recording of a meeting on 18 December involving Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, Nicholas Sarkozy, Manmohan Singh, Gordon Brown, and the Chinese deputy foreign minister, He Yafei.  The audio depicts frustration from the European leaders about the lack of progress in the negotiations and culminated in Obama indicating that talks outside the UN process could be more fruitful.

The Spiegel audio ends with the Chinese asking for the meeting to be suspended.  At that point the leaders of China, India, South Africa, and Brzail convened in a different room to strategize.  Although not invited, Obama crashed the meeting to demand a deal get hashed out.  The resultant document was the Copenhagen Accord.

Ramesh recounts that Xie Zhenhua was banging his hand on the table and talking angrily in Chinese.  US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apparently asked what he was saying and Obama deadpanned: “he’s congratulating us.”

If Ramesh’s account is correct, it shows that there is a great deal of distance between the US and China and there is little to suggest that the fundamental disagreements have been dealt with in five months since Copenhagen.

Official negotiations start up again in June.  It is likely that we will see a continued stalemate.

Tagged with: •
Apr 28

Obama Administration Supports Cape Wind Project

Energy Comments Off

Thames Estuary Wind Turbine, photo: phault

US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar was in Massachusetts today to announce that the Department of Interior is approving the Cape Cod offshore wind farm.

The project has been incredibly contentious in Massachusetts, resulting in a nine-year delay on moving forward and the development of unusual political fissures in the state.   The project was famously opposed by the late Ted Kennedy who was thought to have been worried about its impact on the Nantucket Sound–a prime yachting corridor.   Other Massachusetts politicians, including Governor Deval Patrick, have been key supporters, recognizing the economic development potential and the environmental benefits from an expansion of wind energy.

Salazar did make some concessions to opponents.   The project will be smaller than initially anticipated with 130 turbines, rather than 170, approved.  Salazar also indicated that the developer will have to do more marine archaeological surveys and reduce the visual impact of the turbines.

Given how prevalent the off-shore wind development is in Europe, it is amazing that the Cape Wind project will be the first of its kind in the US.  Much of the delay has been due to the lack of federal leadership on the issue.  Thankfully, Salazar recognized this problem and said that nine years of review for a project is excessive and that the process should be more “rational and orderly.”

He also indicated that today’s approval of Cape Wind should be seen as a signal that the approval process should not be so onerous for other projects in development on the Atlantic coast.

There are still hurdles to overcome before Cape Wind is a reality.  Although Gov. Patrick said that construction will begin next year, the deregulated electricity market has to be taken into account.   Cape Wind will need to sell its electricity to distributors.  If the price point is insufficient, this could have an impact on the financing needed to carry out a massive construction project.

Tagged with: • •
Mar 23

Fast Train to a Slow Bus

transportation 3 Comments »

The New York Times has an interesting article on the planned high-speed rail project in central Florida.  Earlier this year Florida was given one of the largest chunks of the $8 billion stimulus money to improve passenger rail travel in the US.

Today’s article points out that the route that will benefit from the money–Orlando to Tampa–has some shortcomings.  One issue is that the route will only cover a distance of 84 miles.  The concern is that the route is too short to take mode share away from planes and rail.  It is not a hard and fast science, but generally distances in excess of 200 miles make high-speed rail attractive to travelers.  The line between Madrid and Sevilla in Spain (293 miles) contributed to a 50% reduction in auto share and around a 6% reduction in air travel between the two cities.

Photo of Disney World Monorail: expressmonorail

The other problem is the route itself.  The Orlando terminus is the airport–an isolated complex on the southern edge of the city–and the Tampa terminus is downtown.  The route will include a stop at the Walt Disney World resort, but will bypass the Tampa airport.

Both Tampa and Orlando have inadequate local public transport systems, which means riders arriving in each city will be faced with significant mobility challenges when they disembark the train.  In Orlando the downtown financial and government districts are more than an hour away from the airport station by local (and infrequent) buses.

What this shows is that walkability and land use issues need to be given greater consideration in transportation planning.  You will be able to get from Orlando to Tampa quickly, but once you get to your destination you will likely be faced with another mobility challenge.

Tagged with: •
Jan 31

Really Green Transit

Chicago, transportation 3 Comments »

Chicago artist Joe Baldwin just received approval to deploy his conceptual project, mobile garden, on the city’s mass transit rail system.

Image taken from themobilegarden.org

Image taken from themobilegarden.org

The idea is to configure a Chicago Transit Authority rail car into a mobile garden, which would visualize the possibilities for enhancing green space in the city.  Additionally, Baldwin promises to plant native plants in the mobile garden, educating Chicagoans about varieties that have historically flourished in the region.

Baldwin’s project seems to be a kindred spirit to Park(ing) Day where citizens commandeer metered parking spaces, lay down sod, bring out lawn chairs, and literally remake the parking space into a park.

These are great examples of creative efforts to get city dwellers to reflect on the human-environment connection and explore the possibilities of using a city’s infrastructure to get us to think critically about nature and the urban landscape.

Jan 28

US Submits Copenhagen Accord Target

Climate 1 Comment »

After I wrote my earlier post on countries that submitted their emissions targets under the Copenhagen Accord, I visited the tally sheet maintained by the US Climate Action Network and noticed that they had a copy of the official US letter.

Dated today, the letter commits the US to a 17% reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by 2020 “in conformity with anticipated US energy and climate legislation, recognizing that the final target will be reported to the Secretariat in light of enacted legislation.”

There was also no mention of the Copenhagen Accord fitting into a legal process or treaty-building exercise.

The letter does say that the US expects other countries to meet the 31 January deadline for reporting their emissions under the Accord, contradicting Yvo de Boer’s description of Sunday as a “soft ” deadline.

The US response is not a surprise.  The Obama Administration gives itself an “out” if Congress fails to pass legislation or passes a climate bill with a weaker target.

Failure to mention steps beyond the Accord suggests to me that the US is not enthusiastic about the viability of the UN process.  But the reiteration of the 31 January deadline means that the US doesn’t want other countries to delay and that they want to be able to point to positive steps towards addressing global climate change.

Like I said, none of this is surprising; but it shows us how the battle lines are beginning to solidify and what to expect in the way of points of contention as international negotiations continue over the next few months.

On the domestic front, assuming that major emitters (especially India and China) meet the deadline for reporting their targets under the Accord, the Obama Administration will surely use this progress to pressure the Senate into passing an energy bill.

Although Obama didn’t utter the words “cap and trade” during his state of the union speech last night, he did hit the “clean energy/jobs” angle pretty heavy.  Large emitter endorsement of the Accord will likely help the Administration in moving climate and energy legislation.

Tagged with: •
Previous Entries
preload preload preload