I started this blog a year ago. It was a [Jewish] New Year’s resolution. The year before, my New Year’s resolution was to actually use the Twitter account I had set up. In both cases, the resolution is not so much about spending more time on social media, although that is a result of fulfilling the resolutions. My intention in making the resolutions was a different sort of fulfilment.

A year ago, as well as my first post, I published an about me page and a why blog page. In the latter, I describe a number of reasons that compelled me to begin writing a blog. The last but by no means least explanation is that blogging gives me an outlet to express myself through writing. Twitter often helps give me ideas to write about, as well as providing a way to find a potential audience.

My resolution was also to publish a blog twice a month. This I have done – except for most of July and August. In the last year, I also submitted my second completed novel to a number of competitions and started writing my third novel – except for a break throughout August.

Why did I stop writing this summer, in the 11^th month of my annual resolution? The reason is simple and compelling. My second child, my baby boy, decided to come into the world at the beginning of July. With a new baby and my eldest, just turned three, also at home with us for all of August, I haven’t had much free time or me time. Understandable.

What’s less understandable or explainable is how I have missed writing the blog and the novel, and even the satisfaction of keeping up to date with my professional interests on Twitter (some of which I write about). I’m not paid to write. I have no external confirmation of having any talent for writing (mothers and husbands don’t count!). It’s only a hobby, no? One I share with innumerable individuals. We have creative thoughts. We write them down. But we are not ‘productive’ writers, no matter how much we dream. Some of us may become so, but they will be the exceptions. So, we write without deadlines and missing a month or two should not matter. But it does.

In my Twitter profile, I call myself a ‘semi-closeted writer’. Well, it’s time to come out of the closet. That’s why I’m changing my Twitter profile. Like so many followers I have recently acquired, I must acknowledge writing as a much more essential element of who I am. I feel incomplete when weeks go by without writing. I feel the same if I cannot read. Both information and stories need to go in and be let out. I will not be reduced to a milk machine no matter how much I love my baby boy and the rest of my family.

Cliché time: There are never enough hours in the day, but where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Therefore, my New Year’s resolution is to be more honest with myself about how important writing is to me, to continue to dedicate more time to it for the right reasons.

The teachings of the Jewish New Year are about ‘returning’ to what will make you a better person for yourself, your family and community and God. Taking care of my family is the most important thing in my life right now, but I also need to return to doing the things that make me a more well-rounded person. One who contributes ideas to her communities and shows by her actions the importance of reading and writing to her children.

Lofty ideals aside, the word resolution is about more than new promises to oneself anyway. It’s about resolving problems, restoring order, like the resolution at the end of a good mystery novel, my favourite genre and the genre of my last and current manuscript. My resolution is about restoring order and balance to the chaos brought about in my life by having a new baby during the summer holidays. I aim to restore that order by writing a few satisfying fictional resolutions.

I salvaged a road safety education book from a local government clear-out for my then two-year-old. It’s called ‘Look out on the road’ by Paul Humphrey and Alex Ramsay, copyright 1994. It teaches about looking and listening for traffic, waiting for the green man at a crossing, wearing a helmet when cycling and more. On the last page, it asks the child to point to pictures of who is being ‘silly’ and who ‘sensible’ in terms of road safety. My daughter loves that page.

As the new school year starts, it is a shame that books like these are being discarded without replacements. Road safety education budgets were some of the first cut in 2010.

‘Look out on the Road’ tells the story of a family driving to the shops and walking there and then in the countryside. If I were to write a new version, I think I’d describe the journey to school:

Today is the first day of school. Let’s walk. If we hold a grown-up’s hand, we will get there safely.

Roads are for traffic. Pavements are for people to walk on. There is no pavement on our private road. We must walk on the right side of the road to be sure we can see and be seen by people in cars.

Now we are on the main road. There are pavements and lots of people. The road is busy with cars, buses and trucks. The edge of the pavement is the kerb. We must not stand too close to the kerb until we are ready to cross the road. There is no button to press to call for the green man to stop the traffic. We look and listen for a gap, but there are too many vehicles. A car stops and waves, finally allowing us to cross halfway to stand in the hatched area. There is less traffic going this direction, so we soon make it to the other side.

As we come closer to school, we see some other schoolchildren riding bicycles on the pavement. It is dangerous to ride on the road with so much traffic travelling at 30mph and no cycle lanes. Also, many cars turn left to take a shortcut. The side street is wide, so cars turn quickly. We all stop, look and listen for traffic before we cross this street.

We pass the 20mph sign that a previous class of schoolchildren designed. There are many cars parked along the road as we near school. A mother opens her car door, almost hitting a child who is cycling. The child in the car unbuckles his seatbelt and jumps out of his booster seat. He walks between his mother’s car and another parked car, but is pulled back. It is dangerous to cross between parked cars.

We all walk to the pedestrian crossing opposite the school gates. We press the button, but the lollipop lady is already stopping traffic and waving us across. Safely to school at last!

How many examples of pedestrian- and child- unfriendly design can you spot in this typical journey to school? Too often, transport planners provide lollipop ladies where there are already controlled crossings and 20mph zones that only make the environment safer at the school gates.

Instead, the entire route to school and whole neighbourhoods should be designed to be safe for children to walk and cycle. More lollipop men and women could be hired to provide assistance throughout a catchment area, but, like in the Netherlands, only at the start of each term to remind motorists that schoolchildren will be crossing their paths. Children would walk and cycle without a grown-up’s helping hand.

Road safety education books are needed, but perhaps we should wait to reintroduce them until we can reassure children that it is easy to be sensible, not silly, and still arrive safely at school.    

I belong to a two-adult, one-car household. Yet even if I didn’t, my husband and I would be more likely to decide to move from a 0-car or multi-car household to a one-car household than most other two-adult households because we have just had a baby. This is according to some new research by the University of the West of England, University of Essex and Department for Transport called the Life Transitions and Travel Behaviour project (funded by ESRC).

It is common sense that major life events cause people to reconsider a range of lifestyle choices and behaviours. The Life Transitions project studies this on a statistically significant basis using data from the Understanding Society survey and British Household Panel Survey, which together track the relationships, employment, attitudes and health of tens of thousands of individuals over time. The analysis focused on commuting choices and car ownership changes in households encompassing 32,000 people over 18 months. The research also took into account contextual factors such as whether the households were in urban or rural areas, the age and gender of individuals in the households and environmental attitudes.

Most of their conclusions match common sense expectations – an individual who gains their driving license is likely to want to own a car. The number of cars in a household correlates with the number of adults and therefore households that gain or lose an adult through decisions to cohabit or separate are likely to gain or lose vehicles too. Likewise, if switching/relocating employment or moving home increases commuting distance to over two miles, people are more likely to switch to commuting by car than if their situation had remained unchanged, whilst if distances are reduced to under three miles, they are more likely to switch to non-car and active modes of travel. The research also confirms that context such as proximity to amenities and availability of public transport contribute to both car ownership and commuting mode decisions.

All these conclusions and more (see project website: http://travelbehaviour.com/) are valuable to practicing transport planners, who are expected to play a major role in promoting travel behaviour change for a variety of reasons: reducing congestion in an urban area, improving the health of a local population, or meeting climate change targets. The Department for Transport recommends that transport planners use its Behavioural Insights Toolkit and Enabling Behavioural Change guidance to support funding bids and implement Government policy locally.

Apps, advertisements, challenges, competitions, confidence building, championing, crowd-sourcing, information, incentives, loyalty schemes, nudges, social marketing, media campaigning, personalised travel planning – the tools available are many and multiplying. Having strong, scientific evidence to support how the use of these tools is targeted is essential to optimise their effectiveness.

The research also revealed a few surprises that may suggest alternative targeting. The one that particularly caught my eye was why households having a child should seek to become a one-car household. In fact, in the stable population (those not experiencing a life event), children being present in households made it more likely that the household would have one car instead of none or two. This is despite the fact that having a child makes an individual more likely to commute by car if staying in employment.

Does this mean that those who are relinquishing a car after having a child are doing so because they are no longer in employment and decide to become full-time parents? Do they seek to be one-car households because disposable income is lower if the mother is on maternity leave and then due to the costs of the child? What is the difference in effect between having a first child and subsequent children? Does the age of the children matter? Or the age gap (e.g. if wider, then it is more likely that the household will have a number of years when the children will need to go in different directions to nursery, primary school, secondary school)? These questions were beyond the scope of the project and may result in sample sets too small to be significant if the same methodology is used as for the main project. However, they are questions I can relate to personally, and indicate the path to further research that has been launched by the Life Transitions project.

I’m relieved. Relieved that last week I took my last train commute before I have my baby. At eight and a half months pregnant, I dreaded the remote possibility of going into labour in the office, but most of my relief relates to finally finishing with the daily discomfort of crowded public transport.

First, getting a seat is helpful, and those of us in certain conditions do appreciate it. Reminders shouldn’t be necessary. Whilst the ‘Baby on Board’ badges are great if you’re feeling particularly sick in your first trimester or not benefiting from that second trimester boost, in the final trimester, especially in the summer, you’d usually have to be particularly clueless not to notice a woman is heavily pregnant or to worry that if you give her a seat, you’ll be insulting her weight. I had one bad experience on a train where male commuters worked hard to avoid noticing me before a woman kindly offered her seat. But that was my last pregnancy, so I’ll not hold grudges.

However, lack of seating is not the only discomfort to dread. There’s the heat and the so-called, though non-existent, air conditioning that prevents the windows from being opened. There’s the narrow aisles and inadequate luggage racks that no one uses. And there’s the seats that, quite simply, aren’t wide enough for many people and yet are installed in sets of three, negating any opportunity to angle oneself against the window or lean into the aisle when necessary. Yes, I’m talking about the dreaded middle seat.

There have been many times in recent weeks when no one has offered me their seat because there was still a middle seat available. I’m a fairly small person and I can usually climb into and sit in a middle seat in more comfort than most. But at seven, eight and more months pregnant? The worst bit is climbing in. Few stand to let you into a middle seat the way they would if you were going for the window seat in a set of two. Some turn their legs towards the aisle to avoid you climbing over their lap, but far too many simply sit there and expect you to perform acrobatics. As I keep trying to explain to my not-quite-three-year-old, acrobatics when mummy has a baby in her tummy are at best awkward and uncomfortable, likely painful and at worst may result in injury. If they are even possible.

I may have to explain this to my daughter, but I believe a grown adult should know better. My only conclusion is that many of these people are quite simply rude. Which leads me to another point. If it is rude not to move to make it easier for a pregnant woman to access a seat no one else is sitting in, then surely it is also rude to block any fellow passenger from accessing a spare seat on a crowded train. To ignore that there are actually quite a lot of people standing in the aisles and lobby areas and your bag might actually fit in one of those silly luggage racks. Or perhaps under your feet or on your lap? To realise that you’re all in the same position vis-à-vis the non-existent air-conditioning and make some allowances.

Trains, buses, metros and more offer valuable services to society and individuals. Well-filled (crowded!) public transport is a particularly efficient way of moving people around the limited space available in our towns and cities. Yet for it to be a more comfortable and attractive means of travel, then a little more courtesy could go a long way. Courtesy should be for everyone, not just those sporting badges that might make the fit and able-bodied feel guilty.

I would add that other modes of travel, including driving, cycling and walking can also suffer from the collapse of common courtesy, but I think I’ll leave any commentary on road rage for another blog!

Sport and transport have an interesting characteristic in common. No, it’s not that the latter has an extra four letters at the front, although that might be a useful fact for someone who writes word puzzles. The characteristic that has captured my attention is how both have an extraordinary capacity to attract people with a certain type of obsessive trait. So much so, that at times it is assumed that anyone who has any substantial involvement in sport or transport is likely to be such an obsessive.

The obsessive trait to which I refer is that distinct capacity to be what is called in sport a ‘fan’, short for ‘fanatic’ and in transport, an ‘anorak’.

I’m not thinking of the people who might like to watch the highlight show and occasional match on TV nor the people who admit that they enjoy travelling by train and approve of Thomas and Friends as quality children’s programming. (I’d hold my hands up to being that sort of person in an instant.)

I’m thinking of the people who memorise stats about their favourite teams going back decades before they were born. Or people who stand on railway bridges at unsociable hours to get pictures of diesel engines that have much less obvious aesthetic appeal than the cartoon steam engines.

Fans and anoraks baffle me. I struggle to empathise with someone who spends obscene amounts of money and time on tickets, travel, analysis and angst in honour of a bunch of men wearing a particular colour jersey. Likewise, the appeal of memorising motorway junctions and driving without a destination is beyond me. I know someone who does both of these things, but that has not helped me understand why.

Other areas of human endeavour do attract similar obsessive tendencies, but not, it seems, enough to attract the same stereotypes.

Popular music groups have groupies, but they are never assumed to be a large proportion of those attending a concert. Most may be fans, but it is never assumed that their loyalty is to that group only. Yet the majority of those in many a professional sports stadium are season ticket holders, and it would be considered unusual to attend a game without having pledged your commitment to support to one or the other of the teams playing exclusively.

Likewise, quiz shows like Mastermind demonstrate that people retain obscure knowledge about innumerable subjects. Yet somehow, being an expert on most subjects do not garner enough of a reputation to gain nicknames like ‘trainspotter’ or ‘motorhead’ or ‘lycra lout’. At least those obsessed with buses are rare enough to have avoided a derogatory title, and those into planes are presumably too cool for such pigeonholing.

Furthermore, football fans are often assumed to be hooligans, whilst transport anoraks are assumed to be nerdy and anti-social. Generalisations about a person’s character based on their interests, even if they are extreme, is an unfortunate aspect of this characteristic that sport and transport share. One can have a passion and regularly act on it without it affecting life’s other, daily interactions.

Even more difficult is the impact of these assumptions and stereotypes on those of us who have a passion, but in a much broader sense. I like sports without being a fan, indeed without even supporting a particular team or club. I am dedicated to the importance of integrated and multi-modal transport without having any particular interest in bus model numbers or ever wanting to go faster than 12 miles/hour whilst cycling. You don’t have to be an anorak to be a dedicated transport planner any more than you have to be a fan to watch a game or match. Perhaps it’s time to loosen the stranglehold of generalisation and reputation and think about what both sport and transport contribute to our society.

High speed trains, airports and motorway toll roads may make the headlines, but the real news in transport is usually found at a local level. It’s not all potholes and parking in local government. New options are being offered. Single city trials can spread into worldwide trends. There are many interesting innovations in local transport to tickle the minds of not only transport anoraks, but also techie geeks, environmental hippies and social campaigners. Here are just a few:

New Services

In the last five years, cities and towns around the world have been investing in new local public transport services that include more than just buses and trams. Bicycles and cars are also now public, as well as private transport options.

Bicycles are not new, nor is renting a bicycle at a shop when on vacation. But short term, point-to-point bicycle hire is a recent and burgeoning phenomena. Other than a few outliers (including the Netherlands’ national scheme), urban bicycle hire first gained traction as fully-scaled networks in Paris and Barcelona in 2007. Within five years, there were dozens of schemes, not only throughout Europe, but also in Asia and North America.

Cycle hire takes some of the best aspects of both public and private transport. It allows you to hire a bicycle at a station near you and drop it off at a station near wherever you are going. You don’t have to worry about the storage or maintenance of the vehicle, but neither do you have to share that vehicle with anyone else during the trip. Nor are the bicycles like ones you keep in your garage. Locks and lights are fully integrated and they’re designed to be available, outdoors, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

A similar, even more recent concept is the point-to-point car club. Again, it’s a private vehicle for public transport. You only pay for when you are driving. There is no rental office where the car must be returned, nor any extra charges for not bringing it back to the same place you started. It is designed to be an urban transport service for city driving, not long-term rental. Pioneered in Ulm, Germany, this flexible, on-demand system of car-sharing has spread to over 25 cities in Europe and North America.

New Ways to Pay

As ‘Wave and Pay’ is available at more stores and to more credit and debit cardholders, customers are becoming accustomed to holding their bank card over a machine to make small transactions, without the need for swiping, signatures or PINs. It is fast, convenient and secure. Just as public transport should be. So the introduction of ‘Wave and Pay’ on London Buses in December 2012 was welcome news and the technology is spreading within the transport sector.

Wave and Pay is only one method of a suite of contactless payment technologies. Yet compared to the smartcards introduced in many cities, it does not require a locally or transport specific card to add to the bundle in your wallet. Everyone with a bank account will soon have one to hand.

Another solution to address the issue of having to carry and search through too many cards was invented by University students in Boston, Massachusetts and is now accepted on the Boston underground: make it an accessory. The students started a company to make rings incorporating the appropriate contactless technology and the customer’s design of choice. It may sound silly, but it could catch on.

New Choices

The point of these local transport innovations and many more is not just to manage urban roads better or to promote alternatives to the space-guzzling private car, although these are key objectives. Innovative local transport also has a societal goal. It aims to increase mobility and choice, which in turn increases freedom.

No. The title of this blog is not referring to legalising some fiscal measure that rotates budgets. I’m talking about how public sector transport planners are being lobbied to allocate larger budgets to facilities, events and training for people who ride bicycles.

The debate goes something like this:

Low percentages, whether measured by travelling population or by trips made, are by bicycle. Therefore, the benefits of bicycling are underestimated because they are multiplied by a low number of people/trips. Therefore, less transport funding is spent on bicycling because cost-benefit analysis does not support significant investment per head of population. This lack of investment reduces the attractiveness of cycling, so even fewer people bicycle and fewer trips are made by bicycle.

If potential rather than actual trips or population travelling by bicycle are counted when making a business case for spending on cycling, then costs would be far outweighed by benefits, resulting in more investment. This would create a positive feedback loop with more people cycling, more trips made by bicycle and more benefits. Evidence of the likelihood of realising this potential can be gathered from numerous case studies in cities and countries around the world.

Well, cycle lobbyists, I agree.

I think there is a lot of untapped potential and that the low mode share of cycling should not deter us from spending on cycling. From cycle parking to cycle training, from bike lanes to bike hire, worthwhile investment can make a difference. It is making a difference as more places join those early case studies and spend a more significant figure on cycling per head of total population rather than just the cycling population. These forward-thinking places have seen numbers of people and trips by bicycle halt decades’ decline and sometimes rise exponentially.

Yet whilst I agree with the principles put forward by the cycle lobbyists, I am unconvinced by lobbying approach.

Cycle City Leeds, a major conference on bicycling, was held last week. It was attended by lobbyists, charities, local authorities, suppliers, academics, politicians and pretty much anyone interested in cycling. I was unable to attend, but I’ve heard from those who did. It seems that many presentations contained an element of instruction in how to lobby your local government to spend more on cycling, despite the large numbers of local government officers and some elected Members present at these very presentations. Were they to lobby themselves?

I believe that lobbyists are representatives of a vocal minority, be it big business or the little man on a bicycle. And when I consider a vocal minority, no matter how virtuous their message, it makes me wonder who is the silent majority going unheard?

My hunch is that the silent majority is not motorists. It’s pedestrians. Walking is the most basic form of human transportation. Everyone needs to spend some of their time walking. Children, the elderly, often have no other choice – some can bicycle, but almost all can walk. It’s the most accessible exercise. Those who require mechanical assistance to walk (e.g. wheelchairs) are travelling within the realm of pedestrians. Even the most dedicated drivers still need to get out of their cars at some point and walk to and around their final destination (as do people on bicycles, usually!). Their walks might be measured in metres not miles, but they still count.

Or perhaps the problem is that they often aren’t counted. Surveys ask for main mode of travel by distance, not by time.

Whatever the reason, too little proportionately is spent on pedestrians. There’s a Europe-wide cycle challenge going on, but is there a walking challenge of similar breadth? Does National Walking Month (May) get as much publicity and participation around the country as June’s Bike Week? I haven’t seen it. There is a National Cycle Network, which, although popular with pedestrians, is often not designed to be a National Walking Network as well. Mapping cycling routes is much more common than mapping pedestrian routes, but although pedestrians can go on any route, people on foot do not always feel confident or safe doing so. Few are being shown or led on another route instead, whilst there are many popular programmes of led rides on bikes. True, there are proportionately more road traffic accidents involving cyclists, but in absolute terms, there are more involving pedestrians.

Yes, I know that there are a lot of cases in which spending on cycling benefits pedestrians too. I know there are joint ‘walking and cycling’ strategies and maps and routes. But I do think that when local or central governments consider the arguments put forward by lobbyists to justify cycling spend, they could consider what other spend might be justified even if no one is lobbying for it. There are significant benefits to spending more on both!

Once, a few millennia ago, the tribes of Jacob, also known as the Hebrews, were living in the Nile River Valley under the rule of the Egyptian pharaohs.

The Hebrews performed many roles in society, but became known for keeping the wheels of the Egyptian economy going around. The vast majority of chariot chauffeurs, cart train drivers, Nile ferry-men and sedan chair carriers were Hebrews. They had a reputation throughout the Middle Kingdom of being fast, efficient and reliable. They were shrewd businessmen, offering affordable transport of people and goods, with convenient payment options. They never failed to please their customers, and grew wealthy in the process.

A new Pharaoh came to power and felt threatened by the wealth and influence of the Hebrews. He issued edicts such that they must work on their Sabbath, could not stop work for food or toilet breaks unless permitted by their customer, and must agree to any load even if they deemed it too heavy for their vehicles. He even began to dictate their fare structure so that soon they were losing money and became no better than slave labour. Customers felt free to whip their drivers and carriers even unto death without penalty.

God heard of the Hebrews’ suffering and sent Moses to lead them out of slavery. Moses went down into Egypt and formed the Transport Workers’ Union. He went to Pharaoh’s palace and announced himself as the representative of his people. He demanded better pay and conditions or the Hebrews would find work elsewhere and take their horses and chariots, carts, ferries and sedan chairs with them. Pharaoh refused to make any concessions. Nor would he let them leave and he ordered his soldiers to stop anyone who tried.

Then the Hebrews, led by Moses and blessed with strength by God brought the ten transport plagues down upon Egypt:

1. The chariot chauffeurs were rude (or told irritating stories to their captive customers);
2. The cart trains suffered unheard-of and unexplained delays;
3. Ferry customers found themselves being charged with unannounced fare rises; and
4. Sedan chairs were no longer cleaned between passengers, getting progressively dirtier over the course of the day.

Still, the Pharaoh would not let the Hebrews go.

1. Chariot chauffeurs then began to plead a lack of parking by customers’ homes and dropped off their charges further and further from their front doors;
2. Cart trains sometimes simply didn’t show up when scheduled or even much, much later;
3. Ferries didn’t show up when scheduled and then all arrived at the piers at once; and
4. Sedan chair carriers managed to jostle their passengers so much it was as if the roads were made of potholes instead of paving.

The Pharaoh said he would consider their demands, but he was not willing to put anything in writing.

1. Finally, the ferry-men reduced their service to such an extent that their customers were overcrowded on every passage; and, more unbearably,
2. Chariot chauffeurs, cart train drivers, and sedan chair carriers flooded the market and organised their routes to create massive traffic jams, trapping their customers in their vehicles and trapping many other Egyptians in their homes or streets as the constant stream of vehicles severed whole communities.

With all his kingdom brought to a standstill, at last, Pharaoh agreed to let the Hebrews go and seek business elsewhere. They made it as far as the Sea of Reeds when Pharaoh realised the impact this would have on economy and sent soldiers to find them. But the Hebrews had all the ferry boats, most of the trained transport horses and escaped across the water, whilst their pursuers tried to swim after them. Most sank in the sea.

Happy end-of-Passover! Next year a transport take on the trip through the Sinai wilderness…?

The debate about the value of air travel and the balance of its positive and negative impacts often focuses on two categories of passengers: business and leisure. Some of the arguments can go something like this:

Pro: Business travel supports a successful economy. It attracts and retains international investment and companies who provide local jobs. It enables the economy to export skills and services, as well as goods.

Con: Global business might require global connections, but in this day and age, such connections can be virtual. Why clock up so many air miles when video conferencing is so readily available? Aren’t home-grown businesses more valuable to the local economy anyway?

Pro: Think of all the tourism dollars attracted by leisure travellers. Foreign travel supports the local economies in many places that might not be maintained otherwise. Foreign travel broadens people’s minds and improves international relations and understanding.

Con: What about all the tourism dollars from staycations? Local people can support local places. They will go to more than the most famous/historic/dramatic places. Nor is foreign travel a progressive policy, as the poor cannot afford to have their minds thus broadened.

I could go on. I agree with some of the arguments from both sides and disagree with others. On balance, I believe air travel offers more opportunities than threats to our way of life and is a positive influence in our global world. However, there are ways to make it more efficient and less harmful to the environment. But what I really wanted to point out is how often these debates completely ignore a third major purpose for international travel.

Despite the constant political and media frenzy about migration and immigration issues, despite the recognition that cities and neighbourhoods and even families are more and more diverse in terms of race, religion and ethnicity, there seems to be no acknowledgement that the results of this diversity are more globalised families, not just globalised economies. Air transport enthusiasts and environmentalists alike do not appear to consider that flying to see friends and family in other countries might be called leisure travel, but it is not necessarily tourism, and unlike a holiday, the destination is not a matter of choice, but of filial duty.

I am an American living in Britain. My husband’s family is British, but my family all lives in the United States. On our current visit, we are seeing almost 20 immediate and extended family members over the course of two weeks, as well as a fair number of old friends. On our last visit, we managed to squeeze in even a few more.

Facebook and Skype are all very well, but I find that face to face visits are necessary to maintain close relationships, and how could one deny a grandparent being able to hug and kiss their grandchildren in person?

Perhaps there is an argument that people should avoid forming such international families in the first place, but it is not convincing. Not only would that ignore all such families that have formed over the generations of emigration and immigration that have populated the United States, been created by European Imperial ambitions or otherwise formed in centuries of historical events and current refugee crises, but it would also deny the forces that can form families when people travel for business or leisure without any initial intention to remain.

Study and then work originally brought me to the UK, and frequently attract citizens to move between countries even if there is no force compelling them to leave their place of origin. When people travel and choose to study, work or volunteer in a foreign country, it is not surprising that they form relationships along the way, sometimes with citizens of their host country. Especially as so many people travel when they are in their 20s and 30s, looking for the best opportunities before they form a family of their own.

Therefore, I believe that the debate over air travel should not forget the world citizens that have personal connections in different countries. Relationships must be maintained if such citizens are to continue productively contributing to not only in their adopted country, but also in creating a more interconnected, tolerant global society.

New York’s Citibike has made financial news for being deep in the red. The more politically aware of its extensive ridership worry that it might need a public bail-out which won’t be forthcoming.

London’s Boris Bikes have experienced falling ridership over the past year after user fees were doubled in order to make up for a significant shortfall in revenue despite sponsorship from Barclays. Barclays is withdrawing even that partial support in 2015.

Other bicycle hire services have also hit rocky financial waters for a variety of reasons. The Blackpool scheme collapsed as Government funds dried up and no sponsorship deals could fill the gap. Oxford saw the operator of its pilot scheme go into administration, although a new contractor has recently been appointed.

As short-term, public bicycle hire spreads to towns and cities around the globe, local enthusiasm is not always matched by sound business planning. Therefore, local governments who have or are planning bicycle hire might want to consider the following points:

1. Short-term, public bicycle hire should be considered a new public transport service. Few such services can run commercially (i.e. on fare-box income alone) from the outset. Most are publically subsidised or cross-subsidised by other more established, lucrative services. Local governments need to be realistic and set aside a fixed amount to support bicycle hire for a set number of years until other income streams can meet the demands. Or choose to keep the subsidy going as long as the service itself, not an uncommon situation for public transport services – nor for other public services including road maintenance.

    

2. From buses to car clubs, is there any other form of public transport where most users pay a relatively low annual subscription and then almost never pay any use charges (e.g. per trip or time or mileage)? A trend that in popularity has ignored not only party affiliations but even national political systems has resulted in a fare structure where annual membership fees are a mere fraction of the cost of other public transport season tickets allowing ‘unlimited’ travel. Time charges for members are only applicable after an initial free period (e.g. one half hour), which is sufficient for the majority of journeys. The result is that even a popular service like Citibike loses money. If political masters seriously want bicycle hire to operate without taxpayer support, they might need to make rather unpopular decisions about fees for subscription and use. To avoid the outcome in London last year, alternative fare structures could be offered, such as monthly membership, group rates or bundled rental hours for occasional users.

    

3. Sponsorship and advertising are not the same thing. Sponsorship is an agreement between the city or operator and sponsor for exclusive branding on all or part of the infrastructure, hard (bicycles, stations) and soft (website, publicity). The big question for sponsors is how valuable this exclusivity is – if it’s not worth enough to cover operating costs, then it cannot be the sole income to maintain a bicycle hire service. Services noted for their financial success, such as Dublin, have often chosen advertising instead. Bicycle hire is part of a wider advertising contract, where a company that specialises in outdoor advertising from billboards to bus shelters also use panels on bicycles in an ever-shifting montage of brand placement and fresh images.

    

4. As well as reviewing ways to increase income, there are options to reduce costs. Infrastructure costs may be paid for by an initial grant or other injection of funds, but the cost and quality of the bicycles and locking/access system will influence the costs of maintenance and replacement. The supplier market has greatly expanded in the last 10 years, increasing competition and choice. The maturation of bicycle hire systems has also seen improvements in technology and anti-vandalism/anti-theft features that reduce ongoing costs.

    

5. The biggest operating cost is usually redistribution. Unlike other forms of public transport, the hired bicycle is in the user’s control. At the end of his trip, he may return it to a different place than where its journey began. The cost of staff and vehicles to ensure that bicycles are available where and when potential users want them is steep. It is often greatly increased if congestion means redistribution trips are longer than the bicycle hire trips. Redistribution using bicycles with bicycle trailers or carrying the bicycles on buses that travel in bus lanes might reduce journey times. Other journeys might be eliminated if storage containers of bicycles are kept at particularly popular stations. Whatever the method, reducing the cost of redistribution has a major impact on the long term viability of bicycle hire.

In conclusion, bicycle hire is an exciting innovation for public transport that has sprung up in cities on 5 continents, mainly in the last decade. To survive, the proponents of bicycle hire must correct unsustainable business models. The above list does not claim to be comprehensive, but it hopefully provides insight into why some of these new services have suffered a few punctures.