DOCSLIB.ORG

Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing UC Berkeley Recent Work Title Shared Micromoblity Policy Toolkit: Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/00k897b5 Authors Shaheen, Susan, PhD Cohen, Adam Publication Date 2019-04-01 DOI 10.7922/G2TH8JW7 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California SHARED MICROMOBILITY POLICY TOOLKIT DOCKED AND DOCKLESS BIKE AND SCOOTER SHARING SUSAN SHAHEEN AND ADAM COHEN APRIL 2019 doi:10.7922/G2TH8JW7 The authors would like to thank the 11th Hour Project of the Schmidt Family Foundation for generously funding this effort. We would also like to thank the Smart Cities Lab, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), and the Electrification Coalition for their support of cities in their efforts to shift mobility to a shared, electric, and active transportation future. We would also like to thank the peer reviewers who provided feedback on this toolkit. This work was performed by the authors as independent consultants. All opinions contained in this report reflect the independent views a nd analysis of the authors. SHARED MICROMOBILITY POLICY TOOLKIT DOCKED AND DOCKLESS THIS TOOLKIT OUTLINES POLICIES AND BIKE AND SCOOTER SHARING PRACTICES FOR CITIES INTEGRATING SHARED MICROMOBILITY INTO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. OVERVIEW 1 WHAT IS SHARED MICROMOBILITY AND WHAT IS SHARED MICROMOBILITY AND WHAT ARE ITS WHAT ARE ITS IMPACTS? IMPACTS? Shared Micromobility – the shared use of a bicycle, scooter, or other 2 WHO USES SHARED low-speed mode – is an innovative transportation strategy that enables MICROMOBILITY? users to have short-term access to a mode of transportation on an as- needed basis. Shared micromobility includes various service models and transportation modes that meet the diverse needs of travelers, such as station-based bikesharing (a bicycle picked-up from and 3 SHARED MICROMOBILITY POLICIES AND returned to any station or kiosk) and dockless bikesharing and scooter PRACTICES sharing (a bicycle or scooter picked up and returned to any location). Early documented impacts of shared micromobility include increased mobility, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, decreased automobile use, economic development, and health benefits. 4 CONCLUSION WHO USES SHARED MICROMOBILITY? Some studies suggest that the market potential for micromobility could include between 8 to 15 percent of trips under five miles and grow to $200B to $300B in the U.S. There are limited studies of dockless micromobility, and while early studies suggest that users are often Caucasian, generally younger and upper-to-middle income, some of the cities who provided feedback on this Toolkit have noted evidence that counter those findings. Convenience may be a core motivator for using dockless micromobility. SHARED MICROMOBILITY POLICIES AND PRACTICES Curb space management is a term used to describe a transportation design and policy approach that requires curb access to be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient, and multimodal access for all transportation users. This section reviews best practices and case studies for curb space management and related policies, including equity programs, enforcement, data sharing, and performance metrics for establishing pilot programs and policies for micromobility. CONCLUSION This section concludes with a summary of key findings from this toolkit. SHARED MICROMOBILITY POLICY TOOLKIT 1 | Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing 1 WHAT IS SHARED MICROMOBILITY AND WHAT ARE ITS IMPACTS? SHARED MICROMOBILITY POLICY TOOLKIT 2 | Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing motor. The most common scooters today are WHAT IS SHARED MICROMOBILITY? made of aluminum, titanium and steel (Figure 1.1 SHARED MICROMOBILITY – THE SHARED USE OF – Lower Left); and A BICYCLE, SCOOTER, OR OTHER LOW-SPEED ▪ Moped-style scooter sharing using shared MODE – IS AN INNOVATIVE TRANSPORTATION scooters with a seated-design, electric or gas- STRATEGY THAT ENABLES USERS TO HAVE powered, generally having a less stringent SHORT-TERM ACCESS TO A MODE OF licensing requirement than motorcycles designed TRANSPORTATION ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS. to travel on public roads (Figure 1.1 – Lower Micromobility includes various service models and Right). transportation modes that meet the diverse needs of FIGURE 1.1 COMMON TYPES OF travelers, such as station-based bikesharing (a bicycle SHARED MICROMOBILITY SERVICES picked-up from and returned to any station or kiosk) and dockless bikesharing and scooter sharing (a bicycle or scooter picked up and returned to any location). Common shared micromobility modes include: Bikesharing provides users with on-demand access to bicycles at a variety of pick-up and drop-off locations for one-way (point-to-point) or roundtrip travel. Bikesharing fleets are commonly deployed in a network within a Station -based Bikesharing Dockless Bikesharing metropolitan region, city, neighborhood, employment center, and/or university campus. Bikesharing typically includes one of three common service models: ▪ Station-based bikesharing systems where users access bicycles via unattended stations offering one-way station-based service (i.e., bicycles can be returned to any station) (Figure 1.1 – Upper Standing Electric Scooter Sharing Moped-style Scooter Sharing Left); ▪ Dockless bikesharing systems where users may SHARED MICROMOBILITY IMPACTS check out a bicycle and return it to any location within a predefined geographic region. Dockless Although before-and-after studies documenting micromobility impacts are limited, a few North American bikesharing can include business-to-consumer or programs have conducted user surveys to record peer-to-peer systems enabled through third-party program outcomes. These studies suggest that a hardware and applications (Figure 1.1 – Upper number of social, environmental, and behavioral impacts Right); and are attributable to micromobility, and an emerging body of empirical evidence supports many of these ▪ Hybrid bikesharing systems where users can relationships—although more research is needed as check out a bicycle from a station and end their studies on dockless modes (bikesharing and scooter trip either returning it to a station or a non-station sharing) are limited. This section reviews key study location or users can pick up any dockless bicycle findings by station-based bikesharing, dockless and either return it to a station or any non-station bikesharing, and dockless standing electric scooters. location. STATION-BASED BIKESHARING Scooter sharing allows individuals access to scooters by By addressing the storage, maintenance, and parking joining an organization that maintains a fleet of scooters aspects of bicycle ownership, public bikesharing enables at various locations. Scooter sharing models can include cycling among users who might not otherwise use a variety of motorized and non-motorized scooter types. bicycles. Additionally, the availability of a large number The scooter service typically provides gasoline or electric of bicycles in multiple dense, nearby locations frequently charge (in the case of motorized scooters), maintenance, creates a “network effect,” where bicycles in close and may include parking as part of the service. Scooter proximity add value to bikesharing and encourage its use sharing includes two types of services: for trip purposes, such as commuting and errands (Cohen & Shaheen, 2016). ▪ Standing electric scooter sharing using shared A few North American programs have conducted before- scooters with a standing design with a handlebar, and-after studies documenting the impacts of station- deck and wheels that is propelled by an electric based bikesharing. Many of these studies have been SHARED MICROMOBILITY POLICY TOOLKIT 3 | Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing completed by the bikesharing operators and represent bikesharing. Similar to the Twin Cities, the study also findings from a single city or region. Only a very limited found a decline in bus ridership, with just 5 percent of number of studies have researched the impacts of respondents increasing bus ridership compared to 39 bikesharing across multiple cities. A much larger body of percent that decreased it (Shaheen, Martin, Chan, literature has studied optimization issues associated with Cohen, & Pogodzinski, Public Bikesharing in North equipment balancing and lifecycle analysis to assess the America During a Period of Rapid Expansion: environment impacts of bikesharing associated with the Understanding Business Models, Industry Trends and product’s life from raw material extraction through User Impacts, 2014) (Shaheen & Martin, 2015). materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, A geospatial analysis of this study data involved repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling of mapping modal shifts and found that shifts away from bikesharing equipment. public transportation were most prominent in urban Documented user impacts of bikesharing include environments within high-density urban cores. Shifts increased mobility, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, toward public transportation in response to decreased automobile use, economic development, and bikesharing tended to be more prevalent in lower- health benefits. For example, Boston’s Bluebikes density regions on the urban periphery, suggesting estimates 267,000 users completed more than 1.7 that station-based bikesharing may serve as a first- million trips, traveled 2.1 million miles, and offset 3 and-last-mile connector in smaller metropolitan
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Next-Gen Technology Transformation in Financial Services
    April 2020 Next-gen Technology transformation in Financial Services Introduction Financial Services technology is currently in the midst of a profound transformation, as CIOs and their teams prepare to embrace the next major phase of digital transformation. The challenge they face is significant: in a competitive environment of rising cost pressures, where rapid action and response is imperative, financial institutions must modernize their technology function to support expanded digitization of both the front and back ends of their businesses. Furthermore, the current COVID-19 situation is putting immense pressure on technology capabilities (e.g., remote working, new cyber-security threats) and requires CIOs to anticipate and prepare for the “next normal” (e.g., accelerated shift to digital channels). Most major financial institutions are well aware of the imperative for action and have embarked on the necessary transformation. However, it is early days—based on our experience, most are only at the beginning of their journey. And in addition to the pressures mentioned above, many are facing challenges in terms of funding, complexity, and talent availability. This collection of articles—gathered from our recent publishing on the theme of financial services technology—is intended to serve as a roadmap for executives tasked with ramping up technology innovation, increasing tech productivity, and modernizing their platforms. The articles are organized into three major themes: 1. Reimagine the role of technology to be a business and innovation partner 2. Reinvent technology delivery to drive a step change in productivity and speed 3. Future-proof the foundation by building flexible and secure platforms The pace of change in financial services technology—as with technology more broadly—leaves very little time for leaders to respond.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Annual Report Document De Référence
    Vienna 2009 Annual Report Document de Référence TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPANY OVERVIEW 3 Financial highlights 4 The year 2009 6 The outdoor advertising industry 8 One business, three segments 16 Our advertisers 33 Sustainable development 38 Research and development 54 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 58 Management discussion and analysis of group consolidated financial statements 59 Consolidated financial statements and notes 69 Management discussion and analysis of corporate financial statements 128 Corporate financial statements and notes 130 LEGAL INFORMATION 152 Corporate governance, internal control and risk management 153 Shareholders and trading information 179 Share capital 186 Other legal information 189 COMBINED ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS, 19 MAY 2010 205 Agenda 206 Summary of proposed resolutions 207 Proposed resolutions 208 OTHER INFORMATION 211 Statutory auditors’ reports 212 Person responsible for the Annual Report and Persons responsible for the audit of the financial statements 217 Incorporation by reference In accordance with Article 28 of EU Regulation n°809/2004 dated 29 April 2004, the reader is referred to previous “Documents de référence” containing certain information: 1. Relating to fiscal year 2008: - The Management Discussion and Analysis and consolidated financial statements, including the statutory auditors’ report, set forth in the “Document de référence” filed on 10 April 2009 under number D.09-0229 (pages 51 to 117and 213, respectively). - The corporate financial statements of JCDecaux SA, their analysis, including the statutory auditors’ report, set forth in the “Document de référence” filed on 10 April 2009 under number D.09-0229 (pages 118 to 141 and 214, respectively). - The statutory auditors’ special report on regulated agreements with certain related parties, set forth in the “Document de référence” filed on 10 April 2009 under number D.09-0229 (page 216).
    [Show full text]
  • DATE: January 4, 2019
    DATE: January 4, 2019 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager ENC: NACTO Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation (Version 1: July 2018) PREPARED BY: Greg Hermann, Interim Deputy City Manager Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager SUBJECT: SHARED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION DEVICES The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to inquiries about the proposed operation of shared active transportation devices, such as scooters and bicycles. This memo provides pertinent background information, an overview of relevant City ordinances, policy and safety considerations and potential next steps for City Council consideration. Background In September 2018, the City was informed that Bird, an electric scooter sharing company, had unannounced plans to launch in San Luis Obispo without the proper permits or licenses. City staff reached out to Bird representatives and invited them to take part in a dialogue before beginning a “rogue launch” similar to the company’s practice in other cities. Bird responded favorably, traveled to San Luis Obispo and met with City staff to discuss their business model and has so far agreed to follow City policy and procedures relating to their business. Since then, four other scooter share companies have also inquired about operating in the City. They include Lime, Spin, Gotcha, and Uscooter. Staff has been in discussion with these companies and has informed them that a memo would be distributed to the Council outlining issues and potential paths and that no City actions would take place until such time as Council provided direction on whether to proceed with any ordinance changes and provide input on outreach, vendor selection, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Equity Crowdfunding: All Regulated but Not Equal
    DePaul Business and Commercial Law Journal Volume 13 Issue 3 Spring 2015 Article 2 Equity Crowdfunding: All Regulated but Not Equal Garry A. Gabison Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/bclj Recommended Citation Garry A. Gabison, Equity Crowdfunding: All Regulated but Not Equal, 13 DePaul Bus. & Com. L.J. 359 (2015) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/bclj/vol13/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Business and Commercial Law Journal by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Equity Crowdfunding: All Regulated but Not Equal Garry A. Gabison* This Article describes how different countries have approached eq- uity crowdfunding. It focuses on countries or regulatory authorities that either expressed their awareness of the phenomenon but decided to adopt a holding pattern (monitoring and investigating) or new laws and regulations. Countries like Australia have opted to reaffirm how their current set of regulations applies to crowdfunding whereas others like the United States, Italy, the United Kingdom, and France have elected to create new exemptions in an effort to facilitate equity crowdfunding. This Article compares how each country decided to regulate the different participantsin the crowdfunding process. While the results of these various efforts are still mostly unseen, this Article takes an early look at the regulatory impact using one U.K. based platform as an example of how regulations can boost investment. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Venture Capital Newsletter
    Venture Capital Newsletter Newsletter Vol. 1 25/05/2018 Cass M&A and PE Society I NSIDE VENTURE Getting Started CAPITAL By Albert Steffes 1. Introduction to VC The Cass M&A and PE Society of Cass Business School is delighted to present the very first Venture Capital Newsletter. 2. Exclusive Interview: Stasher Since 2017, the society has expanded its field expertise and established a separate Venture Capital (VC) department with a 3. Crazy Softbank Funding Head of VC. The prerogative being that it is quite different to other types of Private Equity and therefore requires a different 4. Promising Tech Start-Ups: approach and focus. Wrisk, Coinfirm & ProSapient We would like to give keen students the chance to dig deeper into this field and explore it as a career path, and introducing it as a financing option for upcoming Entrepreneurs among the Cass community. This newsletter will provide students with interesting articles “The biggest secret in on VC topics, exclusive interviews with Venture Capitalists and venture capital is that the Entrepreneurs, and ultimately the hottest news and trends in best investment in a the industry. successful fund equals or We hope the reader will find this newsletter informative and outperforms the entire rest enjoyable to read while arousing curiosity. of the fund combined.” For further information or enquiries, please reach out to the -Peter Thiel- contact persons at the end of this newsletter. The Cass M&A and PE Society hope you enjoy the reading and that it provides you with new insight. Let us get started – take a deep breath and let us immerse ourselves in the world of Venture Capital… Venture Capital - Newsletter Page 2 Introduction to Venture Capital By Albert Steffes Venture Capital – a word itself that triggers excitement from readers, “Venture capital is respect from fellow investors, and a hopeful awe from on-going about 0.02% of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf (Arguing That the Sharing Economy Is a Consequence of Moore’S Law and the Internet)
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 94 | Issue 1 Article 7 11-2018 The hS aring Economy as an Equalizing Economy John O. McGinnis Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law and Economics Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation 94 Notre Dame L. Rev. 329 (2018). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized editor of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\94-1\NDL107.txt unknown Seq: 1 19-NOV-18 13:05 THE SHARING ECONOMY AS AN EQUALIZING ECONOMY John O. McGinnis* Economic equality is often said to be the key problem of our time. But information technol- ogy dematerializes the world in ways that are helpful to the ninety-nine percent, because informa- tion can be shared. This Article looks at how one fruit of the information revolution—the sharing economy—has important equalizing features on both its supply and demand sides. First, on the supply side, the intermediaries in the sharing economy, like Airbnb and Uber, allow owners of housing and cars to monetize their most important capital assets. The gig aspect of this economy creates spot markets in jobs that have flexible hours and monetizes people’s passions, such as cooking meals in their home. Such benefits make these jobs even more valuable than the earnings that show up imperfectly in income statistics.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Reston Bike Share Feasibility Study
    City of Reston BikeReston Share Bike Feasibility Share Feasibility Study Study Fairfax County Final Report FinalJune Report2011 PREPAREDJune 2014 BY: Alta Planning + Design PREPARED BY: AltaPREPARED Planning FOR: + Design Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments PREPAREDon behalf of FOR: MetropolitanFairfax County Washington Department Council of Transportation of Governments on behalf of Fairfax County Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 2 WHAT IS BIKE SHARING? ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF BIKE SHARE TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 5 2.2 SYSTEM ELEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 LOCAL BIKE SHARE SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 8 2.4 FUNDING AND PRICING OF BIKE SHARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 9 3 BIKE SHARING IN RESTON ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BIKE SHARE in LOS ANGELES COUNTY an Analysis of LA Metro Bike Share and Santa Monica Breeze
    BIKE SHARE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY An analysis of LA Metro Bike Share and Santa Monica Breeze visit us at scag.ca.gov ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Prepared for Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) On behalf of Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) BY ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN Jean Crowther, AICP Michael Jones Mike Sellinger WITH MOORE & ASSOCIATES Jim Moore Erin Kenneally Kathy Chambers SPECIAL THANKS TO City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation City of Santa Monica City of West Hollywood Bicycle Transit Systems CycleHop And the many community members who gave their time and energy to participate in our outreach efforts and whose insights added to the value and relevance of this study and its recommendations. TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS ..............................1 02 A TALE OF TWO SYSTEMS ..........................................3 03 WHAT THE DATA TELLS US ........................................5 04 WHAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS TELL US .................19 05 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE .................27 APPENDICES A - Technology Integration Memo B - Statistical Analysis Methodology and Find- ings C - Agency & Operator Interview Questions D - User Survey E - Survey Results LA BIKE SHARE STUDY 01 PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), in The study centered on five core phases of analysis: partnership with Los Angeles Metro (Metro), commissioned a • User Survey: An online and intercept survey targeted existing study to better understand the role of bike share within the Los bike share users, available for 2 months in spring of 2019, Angeles regional transportation system. The results are intended which garnered 351 valid responses (201 from Metro users to guide decision-making related to future system investments and 150 from Santa Monica users) and provided a 95 percent and new shared mobility programs in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the USA – State Of
    April 30, 2014 Bicycle Sharing in the U.S.A. – State of the Art (Session 3A) By: Robert Kahn, P.E. RK Engineering Group, Inc. Introduction Bike Sharing in the United States (U.S.A) has been on the rise for the last several years. In September 2012, I published an article in the ITE Journal that summarized the latest status of Bike Sharing in the U.S.A. At that time, there were less than 20 programs, but since that time, the number of programs has more than doubled. Bike sharing programs are expanding in the east, mid-west and western portions of the U.S.A at an astounding rate and more are planned in the near future. I first got interested in Bike Sharing in the Fall of 2007, when I visited Paris, France, and I was introduced to the Vélib' Bicycle Sharing System. At that time, the Vélib' program included approximately 10,000 bicycles with 750 docking stations. Since then, it has expanded to include over 20,000 bicycles with 1,451 docking stations covering the entire City of Paris. Bike Sharing is a short-term bicycle rental system that allows users to make relatively short trips of 30 minutes to an hour, instead of using other modes of transportation (i.e. auto, public transit, taxicab, walking, etc.). Bicycle sharing is not geared towards longer distance recreational trips and generally serves local trips to work, shopping, and nearby destinations. In an April 2008 article published by WesternITE – a publication of the Western District of the Institute of Transportation Engineers – I provided a detailed discussion of the Vélib' program.
    [Show full text]
  • Bike Share's Impact on Car
    Transportation Research Part D 31 (2014) 13–20 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transportation Research Part D journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trd Bike share’s impact on car use: Evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia ⇑ Elliot Fishman a, , Simon Washington b,1, Narelle Haworth c,2 a Healthy Urban Living, Department Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands b Queensland Transport and Main Roads Chair School of Urban Development, Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering and Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety (CARRS-Q), Faculty of Health Queensland University of Technology, 2 George St GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia c Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland, K Block, Queensland University of Technology, 130 Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Qld 4059, Australia article info abstract Keywords: There are currently more than 700 cities operating bike share programs. Purported benefits Bike share of bike share include flexible mobility, physical activity, reduced congestion, emissions and Car use fuel use. Implicit or explicit in the calculation of program benefits are assumptions City regarding the modes of travel replaced by bike share journeys. This paper examines the Bicycle degree to which car trips are replaced by bike share, through an examination of survey Sustainable and trip data from bike share programs in Melbourne, Brisbane, Washington, D.C., London, Transport and Minneapolis/St. Paul. A secondary and unique component of this analysis examines motor vehicle support services required for bike share fleet rebalancing and maintenance. These two components are then combined to estimate bike share’s overall contribution to changes in vehicle kilometers traveled.
    [Show full text]
  • In the News -- Jan. 8, 2007
    Oppressive ozone Valley air pollution disturbs many, but Arvin affected most BY Stacey Shepard, staff writer Bakersfield Californian, Monday, Jan. 8, 2007 Arvin's misfortune is to sit downwind of every city in the San Joaquin Valley. That makes it the final stop for some of the most polluted air in the country. "They're like the bottom of the glass," Scott Nester, director of planning for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, said of the rural city 25 miles southeast of Bakersfield. In four of the past five years, Arvin tallied the most violations in California -- and perhaps the nation -- for certain dangerous ozone levels, numbers show. Now, with a federal cleanup deadline looming, the community of 16,000 is ground zero for a struggle over pollution, money and time. Here's the dilemma in a nutshell: ??????The valley must reduce emissions that cause smog by nearly 70 percent by 2013, the deadline to meet a federal air standard. ??????Arvin is so polluted it counts for almost 20 percent of that total. ??????Cleanup to meet that deadline will require an aggressive set of regulations and an estimated $7.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to fund incentive programs. The total cost to valley residents, industry and governments isn't even known. ??????Air district officials doubt the valley can meet the deadline and are poised to request an extension. ??????But clean air advocates and civic leaders say Arvin residents will suffer with the wait; they claim forcing the predominantly Hispanic city to wait longer for cleaner air is a form of environmental racism.
    [Show full text]
  • Crowdfunding Schemes in Europe
    Crowdfunding Schemes in Europe by David Röthler and Karsten Wenzlaff EENC Report, September 2011 Crowdfunding Schemes in Europe by David Röthler and Karsten Wenzlaff EENC Report, September 2011 This document has been prepared by David Röthler and Karsten Wenzlaff on behalf of the European Expert Network on Culture (EENC). A draft was peer-reviewed by EENC member Aleksandra Uzelac. This paper reflects the views only of the EENC authors and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. The EENC was set up in 2010 at the initiative of Directorate-General for Education and Culture of the European Commission (DG EAC), with the aim of contributing to the improvement of policy development in Europe. It provides advice and support to DG EAC in the analysis of cultural policies and their implications at national, regional and European levels. The EENC involves 17 independent experts and is coordinated by Interarts and Culture Action Europe. About the authors David Röthler, Master´s degree in Law, trainer, consultant and journalist in the fields of political communication, media and European funding. He teaches at journalism schools in Austria and Germany. His focus is on participatory journalism, social media and new funding schemes e.g. crowdfunding and social payment. Furthermore he has extensive experience with the management of international projects. He is founder of the consultancy PROJEKTkompetenz.eu GmbH. Personal Weblog: politik.netzkompetenz.at Karsten Wenzlaff is the founder of the Institute of Communications for Social Communication (ikosom), a Berlin-based research facility for new forms of electronic technology.
    [Show full text]