Could you tell us a little about UIC and your position there?

UIC is the global organisation for cooperation between and promotion of railways, and has a strong tradition of working on sustainability issues, both by supporting members in improving their sustainability performance and communicating on the sector level towards external key stakeholders. I belong to the Sustainable Development team in Paris. My responsibilities are within sustainable mobility and climate change, and I am chair of the UIC Sustainable Mobility Expert Network. My work includes developing indicators and tools to report on sustainability performance and progress of railways, as well as promoting rail towards key international stakeholders such as the United Nations.

In the run up to COP15 you were campaigning to put attention on the important role that trains have to play in a sustainable modal shift for the transport sector. How was the response?

The response to our communication campaign “Train to Copenhagen” in the run up towards COP15 in Copenhagen was overwhelming and extremely encouraging! The main reason for this was that we were partnering up with WWF, UN and its “Seal the Deal” campaign. It’s one thing when the rail sector says that it is a part of the solution, and another thing when influential partners support that message. Together we reached a large audience mainly through the media, but also through our trains and stations.

Since there was no deal in Copenhagen, how have you proceeded afterwards? Are you still focusing on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and what other institutions are you approaching?

We still consider UNFCCC an important platform for promoting change. Another important platform, especially this year, is the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) that is reviewing existing transport policies in 2010. In 2011 CSD will launch new transport policies, and it is important that rail’s role as the back bone of sustainable mobility is included there. Most of all we believe in cooperation, alliances and bridge building. Therefore we also support initiatives gathering many organisations working together for low carbon and sustainable transport solutions and policy development such as SloCat and Bridging the Gap.

During COP15 there was a lot of talk about the “Avoid-Shift-Improve” scheme; could you elaborate a bit on that?

“Avoid-Shift-Improve” refers to three main strategies to reduce emissions from the transport sector. Transport is causing nearly one quarter of the global CO2-emissions. If you look into where these emissions actually come from, you will see that the road sector has the lion’s share with nearly 75 percent. “Avoid” refers to unnecessary transport. “Shift” refers to the move we have to make towards low carbon solutions, and here rail is ready to take its responsibility as the back bone of sustainable mobility. “Improve” refers to the emission reductions needed by all transport modes. UIC is, for example, working very hard to continuously improve the rail sector’s low carbon performance via several projects and activities including both technical and operational measures.

How do you look at the relation between trains, cars and other modes of transport, and how does this affect your approach to trying to get more trains on the tracks?

I believe the solution for the transport sector is to develop smart transport systems, where the sustainability advantages of each mode is exploited and combined in one joint system, including rail and cars. Rail offers the backbone of such systems with its low carbon performance, its low external costs, as well as offering access to mobility and quality of life to people. Of course, the rail sector is working to provide more attractive train services and solutions, including more trains, in order to ensure that customers actually prefer and choose train when possible.

How do you see the future for the train industry? What positive developments are on the way and what obstacles are there to increasing the modal share for trains?

The main obstacles to increase the modal share of rail are the economy and policy making that does not take the external costs of transport into account. As I see it, the future of the train industry and sector depends on brave, well-informed and long-sighted policy-making that is based on a cross sectoral approach. I think, as for most aspects in life, we are best when we work together. Access to mobility and transportation reach into most aspects of our society and should therefore not be handled by transport decision-makers alone. I do hope and think that a positive outcome of the economic crisis is that we might be forced to realise that we need a paradigm shift in order to ensure a sustainable development, including the transport sector.

For the rail industry and sector itself – in addition to ensuring the continuous improvement of the train product – it has to work closer with its electricity suppliers in order to ensure a green energy supply in the future as electrified trains will always be as green as the energy fed into them.

Finally, do you have any advice for carfree advocates on how trains can be used as a way to approach carfreeness, both from a planning and advocating perspective?

I would first of all congratulate all carfree advocates for their guts, as you are promoting a lifestyle that challenges our lifestyle, our personal freedom, as we know it today, and that is brave! You also put pressure on trains as you most probably depend more on train services than people with cars – which is of course very good! Keep on inspiring us to perform better! If I should give you further advice I think it is important to stay open for people who are not (yet) into your way of thinking, to listen to and to try to understand them – in order to facilitate good and constructive dialogues where you speak with each other and not against each other. Taking into account the predictions from UNEP stating that the world’s car fleet is expected to reach 3 billion cars in the not too distant future, compared to 1 billion today, your arguments are of increasing importance! Keep up the good work, and let’s keep on exploring on how we can work together!

Illustration by Joris Yang

To explore the future and its limitless possible outcomes is a very challenging exercise. However difficult, it is the main aim of John Urry’s and Kingsley Dennis’ new book After the Car (Polity Press, 2009), which draws many interesting paths of what may be different shapes of the future. After reading the book, the Carbusters team couldn’t resist an interview with one of its authors, John Urry, a distinguished professor of sociology at Lancaster University. Below, he presents us with the ideas he developed in the book and shares his fears and hopes for the future “after the car”.

Interview by Marko Thull

Car Troubles revolves around the concepts of automobility and auto-mobility. Could you describe them?
Take something as simple as a commuter driving from her suburban home to work. A configuration of people, organisations and activities make it possible: global chains of production, marketing, finance, insurance, maintenance and regulation; automakers, parts suppliers, oil companies, designers, engineers, advertisers, construction companies, police, driving instructors, urban planners and many more. Add to that the environmental and social consequences of car travel and you get what we mean by automobility: the complex and far-reaching system of automobile-dominated transportation. Auto-mobility, in contrast, refers to the practice of car travel as part of people’s social lives: the commuter’s experience, as she struggles to get her children to daycare and herself to work on time, sits frustrated in congested traffic, but also feels good about the car model she’s driving and has the fleeting pleasure of a favourite song playing on the car radio.

Why do you choose to separate automobility and auto-mobility?
By distinguishing automobility and auto-mobility, we’re trying to heighten attention to the difference between the system and the practices of car users, to encourage awareness of how they are connected, and to foster action on both levels.

How do you see these concepts as useful for understanding the implications that automobiles have on our societies? And in what way can the carfree movement benefit from a deeper understanding of automobility and auto-mobility?
Considering automobility as a system draws attention to the powerful, interconnected interests that support and benefit from it. More encouragingly, it tells us that complex systems are vulnerable to disruption, and can change relatively rapidly and in unexpected ways. Auto-mobility on the other hand, when viewed as practice, shows how car travel is embedded in people’s social lives and its meanings for them. It leads us to examine how people become so dependent on car travel, why they use it rather than other modes, and the pleasures and pains of doing so.

Car Troubles is mainly centred around how automobiles transform our landscapes and societies, and a bit less on how to move forward. What would your suggestions be for the carfree movement, and how do you see the role of the academia in countering car culture?
If we see automobility as a system, then the carfree movement, like the anti-nuclear movement in the 1980s and 1990s, might look at economic conversion so that people don’t have to feel that their livelihoods are threatened by the movement. Auto-mobility alerts us to the benefits of car travel (such as autonomy and status) so that the carfree movement likewise needs to look for substitutes, or highlight other benefits of alternative modes such as cycling, walking and public transport. On the one hand, we know that simple anti-car measures won’t in themselves produce public transport or bring housing, shopping and work within walking or cycling distances of each other; on the other hand, simply providing public transport is not enough to get people out of their cars once they’ve become habituated to them. Appeals for people to change their habits are not enough; there need to be disincentives to car use, and incentives to use other modes.

In our review of Car Troubles, Kelly Nelson writes: “How can we raise the prestige value of walking and bicycling and public transit? How could we devalue the status of car ownership?” Can you share thoughts on that?
We might take hope from the success of the movement against tobacco. Smoking was once cool and sophisticated; now it is a stigmatised activity done by people huddled on street corners. For some urban young people, cars are now not cool. How do we expand that? Status comes from consumption that marks group boundaries, so the challenge is to convince car owners that reduced car use, if not abandoning car ownership altogether, is something that “people like them” do – e.g., that you don’t have to dress in spandex and ride an expensive road bike to cycle to work. Or, that abandoning car travel doesn’t require an asceticism that will cut you off from normal social life. Although opponents of the car will never have the resources of automakers, sophisticated marketing is one way to attempt to counter the status and other appeals of auto-mobility.

Interview by Alexander Berthelsen, illustration by Richard Liptrot.

Brendt Barbur

How and why did you start the first BFF?

I have no idea why! For sure one turning point was when I was hit by a bus in New York 10 years ago. I also got arrested at a Critical Mass ride around the same time, so I really wanted to do something positive for the bike culture.

I decided to use the medium of a film festival. Events centered around bike culture was not necessarily an original idea, as some people were already doing it for a long time, but the Bicycle Film Festival attracted many people from different backgrounds who were really enthusiastic by this idea. Mostly the artistic community of New York committed themselves to the project and we made our first festival in the city 9 years ago. It proved to be a success and it was obvious that people were really into it.

Did you expect such success nine years later? How did it spread to so many cities?

From the beginning I was quite ambitious about the event in New York, but I never imagined it would spread to 39 cities.

Now we have a team based in New York and we work from there like a web to other festivals, as a kind of franchise. We are like a big family, most of the teams have been working with the festival for a long time and are great friends of mine, others are new to me this year but our relationship is strong. I do the film programming for each city, so it’s not that they use our name and we send movies over; it is a real collaboration between the homebase in New York and the various teams worldwide.

Do you get some help from cycling activist groups?

We try to work with bicycle organisations and support them. For instance the San Francisco Bike Coalition provides parking for bicycles and we give them a bunch of free tickets. Activists have their role to play, but we also try to get artists and other organisations involved in the festival – it’s an urban-cultural event first.

How about the impact of BFF? What is your main aim?

Our main objective is of course to promote bikes for everyday life and hopefully we can inspire people to do so, but we also want to have a good time. Many people face obstacles allowing them to use their bicycles everyday and change will take time.

One of the biggest problems is infrastructure: I have to ride to work with a suit; is there a shower? Is there a place to park my bike? Is it safe to ride to work? For instance, in New York many people are frankly too afraid to ride to work, but there is mass transit there that takes people out of their cars. Another problem concerns lifestyles. In the western world in particular, we have many kinds of mass advertising telling us that to get from A to B you have to drive a car. Car culture is strongly implemented in our minds, and we’ve got to break out of that.

What is your take on the carfree movement?

On a personal level, I support the carfree movement. I’m really excited to see what’s happening in New York: some major streets are being turned into public spaces. We would never have thought that Times Square would close to cars, and that we’d be able to sit down in the middle.

What are your hopes for the future of transportation?

The car has changed the way people live and is strongly connected with consumer society. It creates many problems like urban sprawl and affects social relations. Therefore, I really hope that bicycles can change the way people live, the way our cities are built, and the way people interact with their communities. I believe the bicycle can help to give more spontaneity in our social relations and to give a new face to our cities.

By Marko Thull

In March 2009 Martin Kaltwasser and Folke Köbberling, two artists from Berlin, Germany, took part in the car cult exhibition in Prague along with

“Crushed Cayenne” is a replica of a SUV made from recycled materials. What inspired you create this piece?

We are living in a car-dominated environment. Being carfree, Martin and I wanted to express our views on this, in particular on the SUV – as the “Crushed Cayenne”. SUVs dominate the roads, pollute the environment and cause terrible accidents. By showing its self-destruction in a frontal crash of two Porsche Cayennes we are commenting on the hermetic, hedonistic and militant ideology design of SUVs. We hope that it helps people consider these implications and to stop buying not only these huge SUVs, but cars in general.

Art is becoming a popular way for people to express their carfree ideas. Why do you think this is?

In the 1950’s and 1960’s people began making installations about the use of cars. This is a growing trend and we continue to use the same principle in our work. In general contemporary art can be everything: affirmative, critical or phenomenological. And actually, critical art positions like ours are a minority in the contemporary global art context. We consider our work as a personal form of resistance – against cars, neoliberalism, consumerism, etc.

Much of your artwork supports sustainable mobility and resource alternatives. What can you say about the inspiration for your work?

Many things inspire our works. For example, what we read in the newspaper, or by simply observing how people live. We are particularly concerned about issues regarding mobility in cities, which are often surrounded by power struggles, ideology and irrationality. By exploring these issues visually it helps our understanding of why we desire things and how resources are used, such as the materials used to make cars. We want to show with our art that it is possible to create a better world for everybody – using the simplest methods and even using junk material.

How do you feel your work has evolved over time?

It has changed a lot, but no project is ever the same, and the car is an ongoing project. For example, the wooden SUV has moved to many places. We began by displaying it in a parking space but nothing happened, so we decided to move it and change its appearance every time – most recently at the car cult exhibition in Prague, fully displayed on a column to show its dominance. Many of our critical artworks, such as the SUVs, have turned into a series, but they also lead onto explorating other transport alternatives and possibilities.

What has been your most memorable exhibition or work related to the carfree movement?

Every exhibition is memorable. On the subject of mobility, “Crushed Cayenne” was our first and biggest works. It has so much feeling and many can relate to this piece. Another important work was “Cars to Bicycles”, based on the transformation of a Peugeot 205 into two working bicycles during a 20-day event in Austria last year.

How do you rate the effectiveness of your pieces?

Unfortunately I can’t measure them! But there are small measurable results. For example, during a street exhibition in Berlin, we occupied a sign displaying “It’s the car that kills you”. It attracted a positive response of around 200 people – almost all came without a car. Generally, the reaction from car owners differs; either they totally ignore our pieces or, if they don’t, they see our work as insignificant, in comparison to the gigantic car ideology which most people believe in.

In a world so obsessed with the car, are you optimistic for the future of sustainable mobility?

In Germany there are so many signs aimed at encouraging people to buy new cars. I think as long as car advertising is so strong then it is difficult to change people’s attitudes and to try something new. But I think it is important to stay optimistic for the future.

What projects have you got lined up for the future?

We are now working on a project to transform a car into a bicycle and other useful products. We will work with design engineers to take a whole car apart and recycle 100% of its parts in to products that we will feature in a festival this summer in Hamburg, Germany.

by Jane Harding

For more information, please visit: www.folkekoebberling.de

How much of your latest book is autobiographical?

Birds, Booze and Bulldozers is essentially a “faction”, approximately 50% “real” and 50% imagined – I’d like to think that only those who were involved can tell which half actually happened. I wanted it to be a “fish out of water” account as it helps the non-activist reader to have empathy for what Lester experiences, but it does of course reflect a lot of what I thought and felt at the time.

You took part in the Newbury bypass protest, any standout memories from that time?

I think the mid-90s was a very special period. Although there never seemed to be enough bodies on the ground we were blessed with lots of full-time activists compared to today. It managed to capture the headlines and public imagination long before the “Cult of Swampy” occurred. There were so many great moments, times when you really thought you were making a difference.

The protests at Newbury were the pinnacle in terms of scale and media interest – it was the last battle we lost in order to “win” the war. My overwhelming memories are lack of sleep, mud, tears and laughter. Being at Kennet Camp the night before the eviction, knowing I was going to be one of the last people to see such a beautiful place, was quite spooky and reinforced my belief we were doing the right thing.

Do you feel you achieved something then?

If you look at the effect of direct action on issues such as the roads programme, rainforest timber and third world debt, I think a persuasive argument can be made that we did make a difference. It also caused a ripple effect through to the heightened environmental awareness of today.

The book reveals an interesting variety of people involved with direct action in the 90s, not the stereotypical eco-warriors. Was this the case?

There was a genuine diversity in the people involved; the press invented the stereotype of the “eco warrior” in order to categorise us for the hard-of-thinking. One thing about people, which is both wonderful and sometimes frustrating, is that everyone – even with globalisation and social pressure to conform – is different. Jeremy Clarkson [TV-host of Top Gear] may be a planet trashing arse but at least he’s a distinct individual and the same could be said of most activists.

You described yourself as a full-time environmental activist in the 90s. Are you still active today?

I haven’t been arrested for 12 years now and at the grand old age of 36 couldn’t see myself climbing up a crane unless there was a very good reason. However, a hatred for the car and the culture and economics that surround it still burns inside me. There are many ways for people to do the right thing and activism is merely one.

What do you think of the new generation of direct action groups, like Plane Stupid?

I have great respect for the new generation of activists. It’s far harder to do direct action at airports, especially with all the post 9/11 hysteria. There was a story about someone infiltrating Plane Stupid in the paper recently. Its nice to see the group members were sharp enough to spot him – and that the campaign is deemed worthy of being spied upon.

Does direct action still have a role to play? Can you save the planet with a bicycle lock?

Maybe. But it’s going to take many thousands of people to get fired up and do something about it. Right now I can’t see it without something drastic happening to people’s lifestyles. Perhaps a movie version of Birds, Booze and Bulldozers at every multiplex would help shift people’s attitudes.

Interview by Sam Fleet, published in Carbusters #34.

What is New Urbanism all about and what does it mean for the carfree movement?

New Urbanism is a revival of the lost art of place making. The principles of New Urbanism come from a series of urban development and town planning practices, starting in many historical cities all over the world such as Greece and Rome. It is an updating of past practices transforming cities into more viable and enjoyable places to live. At its basis is creating urban spaces where the car is not required, with mixed-use public transportation and supporting walking and cycling as daily transportation, rather than weekend sports.

Where has New Urbanism worked best to create a walkable and bikeable urban area?

Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark, is one of the best examples in the world of a city that has reclaimed space taken up by the car. During the 1960s the city was full of cars and little by little they have reclaimed this space. Today, there is an entire network of carfree spaces – you will see people walking and using bikes all the time. Danish urban designer Jan Gehl was behind many of the changes in Copenhagen. He was also hired as a consultant in the US to show similar changes could be made in the city of New York. There have been positive changes including a movement towards removing cars from prime squares and streets, some blocks of the city are now completely closed off to cars – hopefully this is just the beginning. However, Europe is way ahead of America in terms of taking the car out of the picture. Although interest is growing and many people are now using public transport, there still remains barely any carfree spaces in the US.

Can New Urbanism be applied anywhere in the world?

Absolutely. The principles behind New Urbanism come from time-tested principles of creating urban areas. So it already exists in many places all over the world, but the key is to get new urban developments to follow the same principles. In America this form of urban development was thrown away. Instead, from 1945, a completely foreign form of development took place, based around the car. It became a crazy sprawl with no history, which doesn’t make any sense – economically, politically, functionally, or environmentally. The problem now is that many European and Asian countries are adopting the American urban model, when they should simply adapt an existing model from their own history.

You point towards investing in high-speed trains in the US as a solution to major crises including a collapsing economy, outdated infrastructure and out of control carbon emissions. Why did you choose trains over the alternatives?

Well we are promoting all of the alternatives. I see it as a complete system: high-speed trains are the backbone to regional rail systems, then local trams, trolleybuses and taxis, as well as areas to walk and cycle – together forming a green and sustainable transportation system. High-speed rail in particular connects the whole system, and feeds all forms of public transport so there is no need for a car in the system. But you need all the pieces to work together. It wouldn’t matter if you were traveling six blocks, or six states all working components – an integrated rail system, or enhanced capacity for riding bikes and walking for example, means that there is no need for a car. It would also reduce dependency on oil and lower carbon emissions. Currently, US road networks are built for long distance and high-capacity travel, with smaller regional and local roads extending from this. So the idea is to form a parallel system all based on rail, bicycles and walking.

What examples can the US learn from?

You can see high-speed trains already in action in many parts of Europe and Asia. France started building high-speed rail in the early 1980s and has continued to improve this, as well as develop new systems to complement this. For example, a newly opened tram network opened in Nice feeds into the national train system and Paris has a Velib bicycle rental programme. Therefore, France and many parts of Europe are great models for America. But investment is what is needed.

What reaction have you received from decision-makers and other stakeholders?

Now for the first time in many years we now have a president that appreciates and understands the value of high-speed rail. We have just passed a stimulus package that put in around US$9 billion into the rail system – one of the largest amounts of money invested into rail in US history. Currently there is huge interest in public transportation, particularly rail; it is being talked about at all levels. It’s great to see so much interest for sustainable transportation.

The economic system is currently undergoing a major credit crisis. What has been the impact your plans for high-speed rail?

The economic crisis has had several implications. One of course is the question of when will we get the money to build? Of course, this is an investment and putting permanent solutions in place will benefit the country over time. It will also help reduce US dependency on imported oil, currently between US$6-7 billion is spent per year. Enhancing transport efficiency has many spin-offs such as improving the environmental, economic and social landscape. Moving people in a more sustainable way will lower costs of oil imports, create jobs in the building and running of the system; and generate opportunities in real estate for building compact, sustainable and carfree communities around the train stations.

In a world so obsessed with the car, are you optimistic that ideas from New Urbanism will make a difference to creating a more pedestrian-friendly urban culture?

New Urbanism has been doing that for a long time, it just needs to keep going. New Urbanism has been behind the revitalisation of many historical cities in the world, particularly in Europe and the US, which were not valued and either abandoned or demolished. In the US for example, many places have introduced carfree zones since the 1980s and other laws making them more walkable and updated with the introduction of an integrated public transportation system. But now it needs to be stepped up to a faster pace, to make a fundamental shift in how Americans travel – this can be brought together into one system.

What projects have you got lined up for the future?

My main focus is to push for a paradigm shift in America. I think high-speed rail will help solve serious issues like climate change and peak oil. Everyone has a role to play in this. I am working on promoting and making it a national priority; working with advocacy groups to pressure the US government to provide the funding for it. In parallel with this I am helping promote the development of pedestrian and bike-friendly communities. There is no reason why America shouldn’t introduce a Velib system like we see in Paris. The whole idea of carfree cities, widespread bicycle and train use is the solution to drastically cutting oil and other resource consumption. Solving these problems is making carfree cities the mainstream – walkable and bikeable cities are enjoyable places to live and have multiple benefits.

By Jane Harding

For more information, please visit:

www.UrbanDesign.org and www.NewUrbanism.org

What led you to undertake this ride?
I’m passionate about travel and about the environment. When I heard about the negotiations taking place in Copenhagen, I thought it was the perfect way to combine these passions. This journey allows me to see the world, take action on climate change and travel in a sustainable way.

It must be pretty tough at times, what keeps you going?
There are some very hard days. Mongolia has been very hard. There are no roads, a lot of sand, a lot of wind and not many places to buy food and water. I even think about quitting from time to time when it gets very tough. What keeps me going is the belief that: by cycling from Australia to Denmark, I can encourage others to change their behaviour and choose sustainable options. I want to motivate people to change by highlighting the impact climate change has on the most vulnerable communities in the world, like the nomads in Mongolia.

How do people you meet react towards your challenging journey?
Reactions vary almost as much as people. Many people just shake their head and think I am crazy. Sometimes people stare at me in bewilderment, sometimes wave and smile in support. The journey I’m taking is so out of the ordinary that some people just cannot understand it.

What impact do you think your journey will have on yourself and the planet?
The journey will undoubtedly have an incredible impact on me. For the planet, it really depends. I put a lot of work into publicising sustainable transport and travel and encourage people to look at their behaviour and think about its impacts. So far almost 250 people have joined the Ride Planet Earth Challenge to cut their car use. I hope by the time I reach Copenhagen there will be many more people joining and therefore many more cars off the road. But we will have to wait and see. All I can do is keep cycling and keep trying.

The big event on December 5 can have a greater impact. Cyclists around the world will join the ride and start “Cycle Change” to tackle climate change. We currently have about 12 events planned across five continents.

How will you measure the success of your ride?
By the number of participants on the ride – the more there are, the more successful it will be. Obviously I hope that the outcome of the negotiations in Copenhagen will be satisfactory. I think this project helps put pressure on governments to take action, it will not be decisive. But I want to start change whether or not governments do, and that change can be measured directly.

What are your thoughts on the future of cars?
I think that with action, dirty petrol-powered cars will be out. But when this will happen is up to the amount and success of actions that will be taken. Individuals and governments need to understand that using cars the way our society has been doing is no longer possible. We have to start using the alternatives. In some countries this is already happening. For instance, electric bicycles are very popular in China, because people can simply not afford to run petrol-powered cars. Of course this change must go hand in hand with a change to renewable energy sources. If these things happen, there is a future for cars. If not, we are in trouble. But it will be hard to change people’s mind, especially in places like Australia, where I’m from – people there consider their car as a main symbol of success and accomplishment. It is very hard to get them to think differently.

Any last comments for our carfree readers?
Get out on your bikes, on your skateboards, roller-skates, pogo sticks, running shoes, and sail boats and explore the world. Just make sure you don’t destroy it while doing so, by exploring it in your Hummer.

Interview by Marko Thull

For more information, please visit www.rideplanetearth.org

Critical Mass rides are typically held once a month in over 300 cities around the world. Why do you think it is such a popular event?
The problem with many big cities across the world is they are totally dominated by capitalism and cars, which has resulted in many people not finding the time or having the social space to do things they want. But people are now looking for alternatives – new ways and safer places to travel. CM is a great public demonstration for this.

When the ride started I didn’t imagine that it would become such an important public event. What I like about it is that you are always discovering new places, even if you think you know an area so well. When riding in the streets together there’s a euphoria that takes over and the whole sense of the city changes. Most people enjoy this and want more. It is a great event to meet friends and have many interesting conversations, and an important social aspect of the ride is that new communities emerge in every city where it occurs.

You helped launch the first CM in 1992 in San Francisco. What led you to this and how have you seen it evolve?
It’s come along way since the 1990s. It began because there were so many frustrated citizens on the streets pushed to the side by cars. I got together with a group of people, we were talking about bicycles and politics for months, and from that informal process the idea emerged to meet up once a month and “ride home together” – filling the streets with bikes and thereby displacing cars. This monthly mass seizure of the streets has had a powerful effect in altering imaginations and creating political energy for deeper changes in city life.

We decided not to seek attention in the mass media. Our plan was never to talk to the media, but instead this ended up attracting more media interest. Our activity is rooted in face-to-face, direct experience. Of course that itself can become interesting to the mass media, especially if the participants are indifferent to such attention. Generally media coverage is predictable, misinformed and skewed to the perspective of mainstream (car) culture. Only when they experience a ride do they portray the experience in a friendly light.

Which has been your most memorable ride?
Well that’s a really difficult question because I’ve been on so many and they’ve all been so different. I’ve been on probably no less than 50 fantastic rides in San Francisco – it’s a great city with so many enjoyable places to ride and so full of hills. But one of the very memorable rides was a big CM in Rome (Ciemmona in Italian) in 2008, where for three days we rode, ending at the beach on Sunday.

During this ride we entered the freeway and rode a long way before heading back into the centre of Rome and past the Piazza del Popolo. Another great ride was in New York City in July 2003, where more than 1,000 cyclists rode through Manhattan and across the Queensboro Bridge to end up at a big party. The weather was perfect and everyone was quite euphoric.

Is there a specific need for CM?
There is not one specific goal for all rides. They are demonstrations in different places for many different reasons. I think one of the important things to emphasise is that CM is not an instrumental event; that is to say, it has no further purpose than to exist. It is a chance for cyclists to meet in public, to reinhabit the city on a new basis, and to form relationships out of which new political initiatives might grow.

In San Francisco, where it first started, the ride does not have such a political culture right now, but there are about 1,500 participants in each ride. They come for all kinds of reasons, some to party, some to make an ecological statement, others to demonstrate the rights of cyclists to use the city streets. There is little advertising into this event, but we still attract new people to the rides, and of course there are always the old-timers who come along to nearly every ride. It’s frustrating to me that there’s not more political culture and xerocracy* and I look forward to it being more engaging politically someday.

What are the current challenges for CM?
One of our biggest challenges is to transmit the culture to new riders, explaining what we’ve learned over time and how the ride is better or worse, depending on internal dynamics, self-management of conflicts and so on. At one time we were very hands-on and would bring flyers to every ride, full of news and advice and suggested routes and themes. But nowadays there is little of that going on, the ride just happens, and everything about it is spontaneous and unpredictable. Which is fine, of course!

There are other issues the demonstration helps bring attention to, such as the need to build suitable bicycle infrastructure around cities, like more bike parks and lanes. But that’s never been its “purpose”. In San Francisco, there was a court injunction to stop all bicycle improvements, from bike lanes to parking racks. CM continued to ride throughout the two years since that injunction, and now city planners have decided to double the number of bike lanes. The local Bicycle Coalition spent a lot of time and energy organising pressure on local politicians and the bureaucracy to make those changes, and you could say CM helped by reminding everyone every month that there are a lot of cyclists out there.

Has the downturn in the world economy had an effect on CM?
Well, I don’t think it has directly affected it because so many people are passionate about bicycles and this is not going to change. The downturn has certainly magnified the problems and what needs to be done – people want improvements to old systems of transportation, as well as new methods of transportation. In many countries governments are promoting cycling much more, and many individuals are choosing cycling instead of using the car – a simple act making a change for the better.

How has CM influenced the transition towards more sustainable, carfree societies?
CM opens a door for people to think about space and how to use public space more effectively. I don’t think it can change everything alone, but it is a step in the right direction. It helps shape the imagination of many people across the world to think of other possibilities for transportation – bicycling is a more sustainable method of getting around, and a social and fun alternative to the car. It is an important event – not only because of the use of bicycles, but because it changes people’s way of thinking and perception of how they can use their public and social space.

What projects are you currently working on?
My current work is rooted in the ecological and social history of San Francisco, looking at how the choices made in the past shape our choices in the present. Some of that is transportation-related, but not all my work focuses on cycling or “carfree” activities.

What’s your advice to someone starting a new CM?
The best advice I could give is that you can’t do it by yourself. A group is what makes a CM. I would recommend asking yourself first, what are the reasons for your ride and from there you can find others who are interested for the same and other reasons. There are many websites that can give you useful advice on how to hold a CM, what works and what hasn’t.

What do you predict for the future of CM?
That’s a good question. I really don’t know! CM has a really vibrant life, which is different from city to city. When it is suppressed, that tends to make people unhappy and frustrated, but when people are able to ride freely, new relationships and new thinking can develop. I think in big cities as well as in small towns it will continue to grow, as it helps improve quality of life. People all over the world join CM to make friends and make connections, and shape the way their city looks like.

Interview by Jane Harding

Useful links: www.critical-mass.org