These conversations, it seems, are ones that are going on all over China, and there have been a number of announcements in the last couple of weeks to support that:

Kunming to roll out free public bicycles
Hangzhou Will Have 50,000 Bike-Share Bikes
Shanghai Launches Bike-Sharing Program

What makes these programs intersting is the fact that they are primarily focused on commuters (Hangzhou may have a more tourist population to draw from), and the anchors are being dropped around the metro stations.

Not a bad place.

However, in a meeting yesterday we began to expand on how could these programs be improved upon, and we looked at bus stations.

Using Shanghai as the example, workers who are going from their home to downtown to work would typically ride a bus (or bike) to the metro station, and then pop out near their office. Which for most of Shanghai’s grade A spaces means less than a kilometer of walking (Nanjing Road, Huai Hai, Xujia Hui, Lujiazui).  So, For those who are riding the bus to work, and particularly those who are making 3-4 transfers, perhaps the bike rental programs could be a way where commutes are cut down.  That by riding from one point on the bus line to a hub, or from one stop to a nearby metro, commuters could find a way to significantly save time on the morning/ evening commute.

A theory left to be seen as the middle class look more towards cars as a status symbol, but with the average commutes getting longer and the inconvenience of parking only getting more inconvenient, I am optomistic that these sharing programs will find success go forward.

It is just finding the right positioning, and targeting the right people in the right way.

It is an example of what I believe is the right way for the US, and its firms to engage, and I wanted to quickly share it with you.

To cooperate:

With Adura’s power train, a bus can travel 100 miles between charges, Bush said. Hook up the power train to a hybrid engine, and a bus traveling 130 miles in a day can get fuel mileage of 50 miles per gallon.

Bush has no interest in building the buses himself. While other companies are trying to design entire electric vehicles, Adura has focused on just this one critical piece.

“We only do power trains,” Bush said. “We’re not going to do any body work. We’re not a car company.”

Only time will tell if the testing and development work, but if they do, and through this cooperation a bus with 100 mile.. 200 mile ranges can be commercialized, then I view that as a win for more than just Adura and their partners.

A mission that Adura makes clear on their site:

Adura’s MESA powertrain for bus manufacturers efficiently aligns business objectives – lower total acquisition cost, and lowest total operational costs.

It will be a win for cities looking for clean urban transportation options.

So, with this series, I would like to focus on how China’s urban planning is a model for others.  It is something few understand unless they have been here, and I myself required years working with real estate and rollerblading to fully appreciate just how well planned Shanghai is.

Before I go on though, I should mention that I have also lived in other well planned cities like  Tokyo and San Francisco that I believe offer excellent lessons as well, however as my best practical knowledge is with Shanghai, I will focus on it.

Also, because I have live in some very poorly planned cities (i.e. where urban sprawl is the only real theme), I am going to do my best to juxtapose my thoughts of Shanghai with my experiences in “the sprawl”. Again, while I have lived in some of the worst examples of sprawl in existence (Phoenix and Atlanta), I will focus on my hometown of St. Louis Missouri.

So, let’s get started with a basic statistics overview of each city.

Shanghai has  18.9 million people (2008)
St. Louis has 2.8 million people (2007)

Shanghai is 7,037 square kilometers in size
St. Louis is 22,911 square kil0meters in size

Shanghai has a population density of 2,683.6 persons/ km2
St. Louis has a population density of 125.4 persons/ km2

Already, the differences between the two are pretty self evident.  Shanghai has 6 times the amount of people on 1/3 the amount of land and has achieved nearly a 25 times higher population density, and the implications of these differences are huge.

Looking at the first set of Google maps below, what I would like to draw your attention to (click to enlarge each), is the fact that at a fundamental level the cities of Shanghai and St. Louis are drawn very differently.

Part of the genius, and their ability to achieve such high population densities,is that  developed intermixed clusters of retail, commercial, and residential properties(a point that will become more important later). A single district will contain multiple clusters of retail and commercial within site of residential blocks that allow for residents to do all of their daily duties.

Grocery stores, hospitals, schools, and Starbucks coffee shops are all within walking distances.

On the other hand, through the urban sprawl of St. Louis, a series of hub and spokes are evident. Retail (strip malls) and commercial hubs (business parks) are fed by multiple spokes (roads and highways) with distinct divisions between large commercial, residential, and retail complexes.

Fundamental differences in structure that in many ways dictate how societies are build, and a topic that I will continue building on through posts over the next few weeks where I will look at schools, malls, and other everyday activities that will show just how much cities like Shanghai have to teach others.

So What.

Both Grist and Fallows seem to follow the same line that:

corrective steps can improve even the most hopeless-seeming environmental disasters. It’s worth trying to do something

I would disagree. strongly.

In fact, while I would agree that no options should be taken off the table, highlighting that fact that shutting down 3 provinces for a period of 6 weeks as a solution is simply not helping to address the problems long term… in any fashion.

Sure, we can solve the problem by all turning everything off.. forever.. and promise not to buy anything… again…or.. we can accept the fact that we are humans who CONSUME, and that we have some core issues that need to be addressed through long term planning, measurements, and corrective measures.

so.. it is not worth just trying anything.  Those times are past, and the measurements from proving the obvious to me are simply not adding to the process.

Far more interesting to me would be along the lines of the impact on the 6 months of reduced cars on the road vis-a-vis respiratory ailments.. % increase in public tranport ridership and satisfaction with ridership experience… the energy intensity measurements of building built since 2007 vs. those built in 1997 vs. those being planned for 2010..

Going back a month or so ago, I highlighted an article that linked the lack of carpooling in China to the fear of being fined for being a gypsy cab.  It was an interesting article to say the least insofar as it provided an opportunity for me to consider a hurdle I had not seen before, however that article pales in comparison to the the 2005 study by Susan A. Shaheen, Ph.D. and Elliot Martin from UC Berkley’s California PATH program ASSESSING EARLY MARKET POTENTIAL FOR CARSHARING IN CHINA: A CASE STUDY OF BEIJING (download PDF here)

Where they found (in their survey of 840) :

only 40% of respondents were familiar with the concept at the time of the survey. “Familiarity with carsharing,” nevertheless, is not a key market indicator alone. “Interest in carsharing” is a more distinguishing feature among respondents. While those “interested in carsharing” are slightly wealthier and more educated than those “uninterested in carsharing,” the differential is small. In general, those “interested in carsharing” are skewed towards younger age categories (20 to 35), and this is more pronounced among individuals both “familiar” with and “interested in carsharing.” Nevertheless, carsharing appears to have appeal across the sociodemographic groups in this study.