1. Лука Гуала Can cycling infrastructures and micromobility promote each other? Luca Guala Can cycling infrastructures and micromobility promote each other? lguala@mlab-srl.com

2. Good quality cycling infrastructures: are they worth their cost? Cycling seldom reaches more than 7-10% of mode share May attract 2-3% of former car users Does a lot for individual mobility, but little to reduce traffic

3. Are cycling infrastructures only for cyclists? Other modes of mobility can benefit from well-designed cycling facilities that are: At least 2m wide per lane Continuous, connected and uninterrupted Well paved, with no steps or irregularities Protected, safe at intersections

4. What vehicles can exploit cycling infrastructures, and complete trips made by public transport? Shared bicycles, electric scooters, electric mini-cars, electric mini-buses? All these modes of travel are promoted by the availability of high-quality cycling infrastructures – and promote investment in it!

5. Automated driverless vehicles: computer assisted, driverless individual and collective transportation: robo-taxis and robo-buses Systematica MLab, 2getthere, 2006-2009 Systematica Mlab, Robosoft, 2012-2014 2getthere, 2005

6. Automated driverless vehicles: Micromobility automated vehicle presented on Monday 1 December 2014 at CityMobil2 meeting, EPFL Lausanne Switzerland 2getthere, 2005

7. Owning or using: is transportation a property or a service? Beyond the paradigm of owning a car: shared vehicles

8. Multi-modality: beyond the concept of lines of desire Overcoming the paradigm of travelling on one single vehicle. Interconnected public transport modes; last mile solutions

9. Designing a city around micromobility: what can you fit in 20 square km? The compact, mixed city: putting everything within 5 km from you abandoning the paradigm of single-use, specialized suburbs

10. Are cities sufficiently connected? Short, direct routes are essential to promote “slow modes”: cycling and micromobility These routes can accommodate high quality “mirco-mobility” infrastructures Paris, France Dallas, TX USA

11. Are Russian cities sufficiently connected? Short, direct routes are essential to promote cycling and micromobility Long tortuous routes can be good for fast vehicles, but they are not good for slow vehicles: bicycles, electric mini-cars, electric mini-buses Москва

12. Дорожная система в российских городах: Несколько широких «магистральных дорог» без альтернативных вариантов Москва…. Линейное расстояние = 6 км Длина дороги = 26-27 км

13. Дорожная система в российских городах: Несколько широких «магистральных дорог» без альтернативных вариантов Линейное расстояние = 9 км Длина дороги = 22-26 км Санкт-Петербург….

14. Дорожная система в российских городах: Несколько широких «магистральных дорог» без альтернативных вариантов Пермь…. Линейное расстояние = 3.3 км Длина дороги = 7.4 км

15. Дорожная система в российских городах: Несколько широких «магистральных дорог» без альтернативных вариантов Линейное расстояние = 2.9 км Длина дороги = 6.3 км Уфа….

16. Дорожная система в российских городах: Требует больше альтернатиных вариантов - промежуточных между главными дорогами и локальными Требует более точной и четко определенной иерархии Требует исследования критических участков и участков, создающих заторы Главные дороги Связывающие дороги Локальные дороги

17. спасибо за внимание! Luca Guala Лука Гуала lguala@mlab-srl.com www.mobilitythinklab.comwww.mobilitythinklab.com – http://utschool.comhttp://utschool.com