Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński: Lessons learnt from the process of development of sustainable transport infrastructure in the Gdańsk agglomeration
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•959 vues
Presentation at the Veloforum conference in Lviv. Ukraine, in October, 2014
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Similaire à Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński: Lessons learnt from the process of development of sustainable transport infrastructure in the Gdańsk agglomeration
Similaire à Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński: Lessons learnt from the process of development of sustainable transport infrastructure in the Gdańsk agglomeration (20)
Plus de Viktor Zagreba
Plus de Viktor Zagreba (19)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński: Lessons learnt from the process of development of sustainable transport infrastructure in the Gdańsk agglomeration
- 1. Lessons learnt from the process of development of sustainable transport infrastructure in the Gdańsk agglomeration Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński University of Gdańsk Pomeranian Association Common Europe European Cyclists’ Federation VELOFORUM CONFERENCE, LVIV 10TH-11TH OCTOBER 2014
- 2. Agenda 1. Speaker as such 2. Definition of sustainable/environment friendly urban transport policy 3. Competing diagnoses of sources of deterioration of urban traffic conditions 4. Quasi sustainable ways of extension of urban transport infrastructure 5. Proposed policy modifications 6. Some illustrations 7. Conclusions
- 3. Speaker as such • Dr of economics, senior lecturer Dept. of Economic Policy, University of Gdansk • Co-author of the „Concept of cycling system development in Pomeranian Voivodship (Green Paper)” • Initiator of the Gdańsk Charter of Active Mobility • Involved in several EU sponsored projects such as PRESTO, OBIS, BYPAD, Central MeetBike, Seemore, ELMOS et al • Took part in 11 Velo-city conferences • Vice-president of the European Cyclists’ Federation • Author of a series of feuilletons „Bicycling into the cities” in a popular Polish daily newspaper
- 4. Definition of environment friendly/sustainable urban transport policy (traditional version) Transport policy aimed at satisfying residents’ mobility needs without excessive charging the environment (with noise, emission of air, water and ground pollutants, and wrecks of used cars)
- 5. Alternative definition of sustainable /environment friendly transport policy Transport policy which allows to satisfy the mobility needs of residents and visitors while minimising external costs generated by motorised road traffic borne by everybody, but particularly by those who use environmentally friendly travel modes (pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users)
- 6. Unsustainable urban transport policy Infrastructure creation and traffic management policy • focused on the needs of motorised vehicle owners /users • neglecting the needs of the non-motorised residents • neglecting the chances of substitution of trips made by car by environmentally friendly transport modes after creation of appropriate conditions
- 7. Operational problems of an urban transport system (unreflective point of view) • Congestion (queues) – losses of time • Lack of (car) parking spaces • Irregularity/unpredictability/insufficiently comfortable public transport • Noise • Environmental (air) pollution • Poor road traffic safety • Effects of a sedentary life style
- 8. Traditional ways of solving traffic problems • Extension of transit traffic routes • Extension of multi level (car) parking lots • Separation of different traffic modes (isolation of traffic participants – overpasses and tunnels for non-motorised users • Covered walking precincts (shopping malls) • Modernization and promotion of public transport use • Creation of separate cycling tracks
- 9. False diagnosis of sources of congestion and parking problems • Increase in the number of cars • Insufficient pace of street building investments and increase in their throughput capacity • Insufficient pace of extension of car parking facilities
- 10. Correct diagnosis of sources of increased congestion and parking problems • Urban sprawl (resulting from increased possibility of buying a car and escape from noise and air pollution) • Increased average distance of daily commuting trips • Deficit of strategic reflection • Failure to identify connections between spatial planning and (transport) accessibility issues
- 11. False diagnosis – incorrect therapy • Declared aim – creation of a sustainable (balanced) transport system • Insufficient infrastructure as the main challenge • Focus on the extension of public transport network – years or decades of delays • Fear from implementing „acid” policies (charging the motorised commuters with external costs of their transport mode choices)
- 12. Actual mobility needs – changes in size and shifts in their structure • Slow change in the number of daily trips (about 3 per day) • Higher pace of change in the average trip distance – temptation to use car in trips longer than 7.5 km • How to prevent the elongation of daily trips? • How to show the results of continuation of current trends?
- 13. www.ecf.com
- 14. Propositions for substitutes • Improvement of walking conditions in city centres • Applying stimuli for reurbanisation • Mainstreaming cycling • Promotion of e-mobility and eco-mobility chains (walking or cycling trips to public transport stops, bike and rail systems)
- 15. www.ecf.com
- 16. : Source: Lasse Schelde ‘s presentation at the 4th Congress of Active Mobility http://www.kongresmobilnosci.pl/palio/ht ml.run?_Instance=kma&_PageID=226&_L ang=pl&_CatID=112&_NewsID=332&_Che ckSum=-203180961.
- 17. Road traffic safety records No. of fatalities resulting from road traffic accidents per 1 M inhabitants in EU-27 in 2011
- 18. Hierarchy of solutions To be considered first To be considered last Reduction in the number of vehicles (traffic density) Invisible cycling infrastructure Reduction in vehicle speed Junction treatment, black spots, traffic management Reallocation of street space Cycling routes built independently from the road/street network Conversion of side walks /walking routes into cycling and walking precincts (with varying priority arrangements, not obligatory for cyclists Source: Alex Sully, BYPAD project presentation. Tczew 2008
- 19. Matrix – ecology of actors Involve Cooperate Opponents Partners Outsiders Fans Inform Mobilise Attitude to the issue at hand More Influence on relevant issues Less Negative Positive Source: Lake Sagaris, Cyclists’ Grass Roots Democracy – The importance of strategic participation
- 22. Source: Galewski Program rozwoju komunikacji rowerowej w Trójmieście
- 23. www.ecf.com
- 25. Forecast/expected effects of continuation of current policies 1. Uncontrolled urban sprawl 2. Declining liveability (noise, accidents/crashes, exhaust gases, deteriorating green areas) 3. Vicious circle – escape of taxpayers to suburbs or peri-urban areas 4. Degradation of exceptional valours of natural and cultural heritage of the agglomeration 5. Increased costs of satisfying basic mobility needs
- 26. Alternative urban transport policy (genuinely sustainable approach) Focus on social information and communication: 1. Information about long term health effects of sedentary life style and increasing car-dependence 2. Explanation of the sense of traffic calming and extension of traffic calmed and car-free zones 3. Extension of the visible and invisible infrastructure for active mobility (walking and cycling) 4. Development of parking demand management instruments / systems (fees and restrictions)
- 27. Conclusions 1. Focus on public transport is not enough: you have to improve walking conditions first, but focus on cycling may be used as a trigger of change in the mindsets 2. Main barrier is the lack of imagination and political will 3. Its worth to pay attention on soft measures: education information and promotion of active mobility – e- and eco- mobility trip chains, with walking at the forefront 4. A good idea is to create a flagship cycling infrastructure project first
- 28. Feel invited to the 6th Congress of Active Mobility Gdańsk 2015 You may also visit the following websites www.kongresmobilnosci.pl www.ecf.com www.streetfilms.org
- 29. Thank you for your attention pkuropatwinski@pswe.org
Notes de l'éditeur
- Standard presentation starts with an earthquake, then the tension gradually increases. The earthquake was shown yesterday, today we sail on somewhat calmer waters.
- I will start with some words about me, then try to propose two opposing but looking superficially only slightly different approaches to the development of sustainable urban transport systems, propose some modifications and give several illustrations. The final stage will contain some basic conclusions.
- Here I would like to stress my experience in taking part in Velo-city conferences (altogether 11 of them) and the fact that I regularly publish about city cycling issues in the internet – in the electronic version of the most popular Polish newspaper: Gazeta Wyborcza in a column called „Poland on Bikes” (Polska na rowery).
- This is the traditional approach, that I am not happy with. It is based on thinking transport (meaning travelling vehicles), instead of thinking about mobility (of people). It is a small, but very important distinction.
- Questioning the results of policies we need alternative approaches: here is one of them. The concept of external costs of motorisation (considered as an unqualified blessing) used to be confined to environmental effects only, neglecting the aspect of the use of space: for unproductively parked cars or car-oriented infrastructure.
- Improperly formulated definition of sustainability resulted in unsustainable policies, oriented on cars or – even worse: maximization of car speed, enjoyed by a number of users (including the intoxicated ones).
- If you think cars (car speed) you may think about problems that car users encounter, neglecting the fact, that they often create them. Another important player is the public transport – but people’s needs are still not at the forefront. Then, in a longer perspective, people stuck in traffic jams, start to suffer from sedentary life style diseases. Their treatment costs lots of money.
- If you look at problems from the car driver or car passenger seat, you easily produce ideas, how to cope with traffic problems. This results in worsening walking and cycling conditions, undermining the level of service of public transport. If the cycling lobby is not properly prepared but is determined, the result is to create a cycling infrastructure ghetto: cyclists are supposed to use only the infrastructure dedicated to them and are perceived as a source of problems for the city administration and city residents.
- This false perceptions result in false diagnosis of problems. If it is accompanied with the conviction, that the number of cars may only increase, everybody has a problem.
- In fact the real origins of urban problems lay elsewhere: when the city becomes the city of longer and longer distances, the alternatives to car trips become less and less attractive, and they cost more and more. If spatial planning reflection is not combined with transport planning, we all have a problem.
- Theoretical considerations make the politicians aware about the need to declare striving to develop sustainable transport systems. In fact they often focus attention on engineering solutions and under the pretext of developing public transport networks, extend the street (road network) for motorised users. Planners drive cars and avoid entering into confrontation with car drivers (car addicted populations)
- When mobility needs and travel distances are not studied, the idea of alternatives to individual motorised trips do not enter the minds of decision makers. The challenge then is: how to reverse this process?
- This picture shows the result. Would you like to live in such area?
- The alternative is not very sophisticated: we need to have better walking conditions in city centres, but we also need to start renovation of them and mainstream cycling as a tool – not as an end in itself. (What can cyclists do for the city? Show, that cycling is possible and extend imagination of decision makers). Parallelly – e-mobility may be promoted, as well as access to local railway systems.
- Reurbanisation may look this way: a picture from Gdansk – 5 minutes bike ride from a local railway station, assuring trains every 7 minutes in rush hours. (when I was a student, every six minutes).
- In short, this pyramid shows most of the proposed approach. We need to stress the pedestrian traffic as the basic transport mode. In fact we need to oppose transport oriented approach (focused on facilitation of vehicular traffic) to mobility oriented approach (focused on the people’s needs, not motorised vehicle needs).
- The challenge is the road traffic safety perception: traffic safety experts sometimes try to promote safety and througput capacity of the street network. If you plan for traffic, you have cars and traffic, if you plan for people, you have people.
- Creating visible cycling infrastructure we sometimes compromise the pedestrian needs. We need to think about pedestrian needs first, and promote the creation of invisible infrastructure for people: in a nutshell this concerns traffic reduction and calming measures.
- We will have to invest some analytical thinking and talk to different groups of people in a different way. Mobilise our supporters (fans) who sometimes do not have much influence, inform the outsiders about benefits they may have from the projects we propose, charge the opponents with different tasks if they use outdated or simplistic arguments, and co-operate with partners. The challenge is to convert opponents into partners. It is not easy, but it is possible.
- If we succeed, we will manage to convince the decision makers not only to create dedicated cycling routes, but to extend low speed zones in the city. This is the plan of cycling routes of Gdansk: it includes not only dedicated cycling routes, but also traffic calmed areas, covering some 30 % of all city streets.
- If we fail, we will have such propositions: plans of park and ride solutions in our suburban areas, actually favouring suburbanisation: our greatest immediate threat. Will drivers be likely to leave their cars and walk to the train leaving the station located in the upper right corner up to 8 minutes to reach the city centre in further 12 minutes?
- The vision for the entire Tri-city area (Gdańsk, Sopot, and Gdynia) includes the development of smooth bike and rail connections. Strengthening the local rapid transit system and showing, that you may comfortably reach most destinations even if you do not have a car.
- When you install covered cycle parking facilities at a railway station, you immediately have them filled. This serves as an argument: they need to be installed near all stations in the area. You may also study, what is the distance covered by bicycle users. If we do not count ourselves, we will not be good partners for our former opponents.
- In Holland, when they created the model cycling city by design (60 thousand inhabitants, they created a large car free, walking and cycling zone with a diameter of some 600 meters round the local railway station.
- If we do not strengthen our position, we will have the Business as Usual scenario: a lot of talking about investing in cycling, but stagnant levels of cycling.
- What are then the lessons learnt? Involve engineers, but focus efforts on social information and communication (inform the outsiders and involve opponents. mobilise fans). Insist on introduction of car parking demand management systems: make opponents collect data about parking infringements and levels of potential revenue from collection of parking fees.
- Other lessons learnt? If they tell you, that they want to eliminate traffic jam problems by promoting public transport, tell them, that unless they think about walking and cycling conditions first, they will never succeed. Construction of a flagship first class collision free cycling route may help a lot, but start counting the number of cyclists early (track the cycling trips with endomondo applications)