Take cues from Europe on transportation

Enlarge Image

Regina Hauser is a board director for The Natural Step International and a sustainability consultant. You can reach her at hauseregina@gmail.com.

The media often make Europe seem like it's not just a different continent, but on a different planet. A few weeks ago I had the good fortune to travel to Paris and parts of England. There were numerous reasons for being there, none of which involved a formal study of transportation. But as an alternative travel enthusiast, I couldn’t help make casual observations as I moved about.

At first glance, it doesn't look that different. Both London and Paris have plenty of cars, traffic and pollution. But there were significant differences as I made my way from place to place.

After a trip to Europe I always long for trains here in the states. I traveled point-to-point quite cheaply in England on regular “slow” trains — which still manage make our Amtrak route seem painfully slow. The difference: Trains in England don't travel through streets and thus don't have to slow down until they’re practically in the station. Pretty simple. The cool ride was the Eurostar from London to Paris in two hours and a handful of minutes. I started imagining Alaska Airlines as a rail line while the French countryside flew by.

London and Paris are very large — the Paris metropolitan area population is roughly five to six times that of Portland — and both have plenty of traffic. Paris has numerous large boulevards with multiple lanes for cars. That said, without the Tube or the Metro, both cities would be crushed in traffic. The Metro was estimated to have about 1.5 billion passenger rides in 2010. London’s numbers are also over 1 billion. In cities much larger than Portland, it seems one can get anywhere within half an hour. Density has its advantages.

Parisians are also walkers, apparently at any time of year. Despite cool weather, including wind and showers, the sidewalks were teaming with people. Theses truly are the "15-minute neighborhoods" urban planners talk about. One can go to the baker, grocer, butcher, super market, clothing store and bank from their residence without ever getting into a car or boarding the Metro. No special gear is involved, women and men walk primarily in dress shoes, although men wore trainers more often than women. Other equipment: coats, hats and umbrellas. Sunday afternoon appeared to be a time for everyone to walk, families with children and dogs were enjoying parks and window shopping. (Unfortunately, dog waste is not picked up by their owners, yuck.) And while not everyone is rail thin, the population in general looks slimmer than on this side of the Atlantic. Coincidence?

With respect to bicycling, I would still give the nod to Portland. Both London and Paris have shared bicycle programs, but at this time of year they don’t appear as well used as people’s feet. The bicycle stations were numerous and seemed well placed around both cities. In better weather perhaps they are better used — both cities have pretty short days in January. That said, it seems like bicycling in either city is not for the faint of heart. Neither city has the type of protective bicycle lanes seen in smaller cities like Cheltenham or Strasbourg, certainly nothing like Amsterdam. Narrow stripes are painted on many streets, but appear to give half the space — or less — of Portland bicycle lanes. There are a lot of buses as well as cars, so space appears to be at a premium. Given the greater traffic and number of pedestrians are drivers more patient there? I didn’t have a chance to talk to cyclists in either city, and would be curious to hear from Parisians or Londoners on bike commuting within their respective cities.

Overall, travel by train, Tube and Metro were reasonable and relatively easy. If our region is going to grow as predicted, alternative forms of transportation will be critical. As these cities show, it’s about moving people, not cars.