Transport and Sustainability in Europe: Curso de Mobilidade e Sustentabilidade

Curso de Mobilidade e Sustentabilidade
Transporte e Sustentabilidade na Europa
Transport and Sustainability in Europe

Hon. Prof. Ph.H. Bovy
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Olympic Transport Expert
http://mobility-bovy.ch
Sao Paulo, Junho 2005 Transporte e Sustentabilidade na Europa 1
Content--8 points
1. 2. 3. 4.
Introduction: Europe and transport/mobility sustainability Metropolitan transport/mobility development : the case of PARIS Urban density and mobility multiple interdependences Car ownership evolution
Transporte e Sustentabilidade na Europa 3
Sao Paulo, Junho 2005
content--8 points
5. 6. 7. 8.
Dynamics of sustainability Urban planning and transport long term orientations Short and medium term pragmatic orientations Sustainable development perspectives
1. Europe and sustainability

What European outstanding characteristics? What definition for transport sustainability? Europe has: A generally stabilized population (720 million) A very high urbanisation ratio (80%) A dense continental (especially Western) transport system with rather strong rail networks Cities with the densest rail transport networks Intermediate average urban densities (>50 hab/ha)
population trends
1975 World Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America
! +39% +73% +43% +7% +48% +22%
1995 5700 720 3440 730 475 300
! +28% +64% +27% -2% +32% +17%
2015 7300 1180 4380 715 625 350

6
4100 415 2400 680 320 245
urbanization trends
1975 World Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America
! +21% +44% 42% + 7% +21% + 4%
1995 46% 36% 34% 72% 74% 77%
! +22% +33% +41% 12% +11% + 9%
2015 56% 48% 48% 81% 82% 84%

7
38% 25% 24% 67% 61% 74%
and sustainability
Numerous definitions, increasingly
sophisticated and often technocratic Sustainability = Search for balanced development patterns incorporating mobility growth Sustainability perceived differently in different cultures Northern European cultures sensitive to collective and ecological values + discipline
sustainability
Southern European cultures more
individualistic, less ecologically oriented The search for more balanced development is not new --much earlier than the sustainability concept invention around 1990 Pragmatic and dynamic definition - point 5
2.
Metropolitan transport / mobility development--Paris
In most metropolitan areas:

higher density metropolitan central areas,
where public transport is the most attractive and efficient, are loosing population and jobs transport is much less attractive and efficient, and where the automobile is dominant, are gaining population and jobs
low density peripheral sectors, where public
Public transport improvements and automobile dependence

Substantial public transport service
improvements are not capable, by themselves, to trigger a substantial reduction of automobile dependence
Ever growing low density metropolitan
sprawl, dispersed employment, car ownership growth and longer work-travel journeys are contributing factors to public transport relative decline
Systematic Mobility Plan updates

Most european metropolitan transport policies are
revised every 5 years to comply with new sustainability legislations

New Mobility Plans contain invariably the same
main types of recommendations :

significant public transport strengthening is
needed to serve old and new developments
tighter control of automobile traffic and
parking must be implemented to reduce car dependency

Current trends are the opposite:

In the Paris Region (11.5 millions inhabitants) last 15 year
mobility trends indicate: automobile travel public transport travel walking and two-wheel travel Master Plan will lead to : + 55 % of motorized passengerkilometers of which 2/3 by private cars
+ + -
35 % 5% 20 %
If no significant policy changes are made, the Paris 2015
14
Paris Region concentric travel patterns

MOBILITY
AND M ODAL SPLIT AT
MODAL
S PLIT AT TRIP DES T INAT ION
RES IDENT IAL T R IP ORIG IN
Paris Int. suburbs Ext. suburbs New tow ns Outlying suburbs Periphery - axes Periph. - isolated Rural zones
0 1.0 A VERAGE DAIL Y TR IP

IN HABITAN T
2.0
GE NER ATION PE R
3.0
4.0
0% 20% 40% T RAV EL M ODAL SPLIT (%) L EGEND :
60%
80%
100%
Source : Plan de dplacements urbains - diagnostic, Paris, juin 1998
PUBLIC TRAN SP . AUTO
W ALK O THERS
HR/ ortm / D und9.6.99
15
Paris Region motorization and modal split patterns

CAR OWN ERS HIP
Paris Int. suburbs Ext. suburbs New tow ns Outlying suburbs Periphery - axes Periph. - isolated Rural zones RAT IO
PUBLIC T RANSPORT S HARE
0.27 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.34 0.37 0.38 0.44 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0% 25% 50%
SHARE OF TO TAL
75%
A UTO M OB ILE / I NHABI TANT
PUB LIC TRAN SPOR T TRIP

M OTORIZE D TR AVE L
LEGEND : P UBLIC TRANSPORT M ODAL SPLIT

AT DES TINATION AT R IDENTIAL ORIG IN ES
HR/ ortm / D und7.6.99
16
Ile de France Region mobility patterns

FORECASTS 1990-2015
[millions of inhabitants and jobs] TOTAL Population Jobs 1990
Growth
2015
10.65 + 11% 5.10 + 14%
Growth
Growth
Growth
PARIS Population Jobs
1990 2.15 1.80
2015 + 0% - 2% 24% 30%
INNER RING Population Jobs
1990 4.00 1.75
2015 + 4% + 10%
OUTER RING Population Jobs 18%
1990 2015 4.50 + 22% 1.55 + 37% 12% 23%
20% 41% 25% 55%
47%
24%
58% 65%
29%
29%
PARIS
INNER RING Inner suburbs 10 km
INNER RING Outer suburbs
OUTER RING Corridors
OUTER RING Isolated and rural
Legend :
PT - Public Transport CAR Motorised Individual Transport
35%
35%
30%
NMT - Non-motorised Transport
17
3.
Maximum
Par ame t s er a to m ) )
Urban density and Mobility multiple interdependences

a) Public transport modal share b) Non-motorised journeys modal share c) Parking cost d) Accommodation/housing budget e) Average daily time budget f) Average daily number of journeys
g) Automobile modal share h) Car ownership ) i j) Parking availability Distance budget
Min imum
URBAN URBAN DENSITY DENSITY
k) Average commercial speed
LOW
Intermediate
HIGH
) Transport cost budget l m) Transport energy co su Transport energy consumption n mption
18
Growing mobility parameters with: higher urban densities
public transport modal share non-motorized (on foot+bicycle) modal share parking costs housing and accommodation budgets
19
Increasing mobility parameters with:

private car modal share car ownership public and private parking availability average daily travel distance budget average travel commercial speed average transport cost budget transport energy consumption
decreasing urban densities
Constant mobility parameters

In a high mobility environment, two mobility parameters remain constant (Zahevi paradigm):
average daily travel time budget average daily number of journeys per capita
21
Net overall urban density
LOW
INTERMEDIATE
HIGH
< 25 h+j/ha
CAR PT NMT
50-100 h+j/ha
CAR PT NMT
> 250 h+j/ha

CAR NMT PT
Indicative overall modal distribution
Automobile use (km/person/year) Public transport use (journeys/person /year) Fuel/gasoline consumption in transport (MJ/person/year) Representative situations Legend : CAR : Car
> 10000
< 5000
< 50
> 250
> 55000
35000-20000
< 15000
North American and Australian metropolises
European metropolises
Asian metropolises and world major city centers
Density (h+j/ha) : number of inhabitants (h) and jobs (j) per net hectare (ha) of urban area (excluding PT: Public transport greenspaces, stretches of NMT : Non-motorized transport water)
Source: according to Newman/Kenworthy, Sustainability and Cities, 1999 Figure 1: Typology of average metropolitan densities and transport selected parameters
Comparative mobility parameters

Seven key mobility parameters for 5 world metropolises: a) average urban density: habitants/net hectare b) GDP per capita: GDP in US$/person c) car ownership: private cars/1000 inhabitants d) total mobility: total trips/person/day e) proportion of total mobility by car f) total transport energy per person in MJ g) public transport share: % motorized mobility by PT Statistics are from UITP Millennium City Database (Newman & Kenworthy)
1995
Density (hab/ha)
GDP per capita
Houston Madrid Paris London 9

31 000
Hong Kong 320

23 000
85
18 000
50
41 000
60
22 000
Car ownership (c/1000)

Motorcycle own.(m/1000) Total mobility (trips/day)
695
(5) 4.65
430
(25) 1.95
420
(60) 2.85
330
(10) 2.80
45
(5) 2.80
Mobility by car
Mobility by bicycle
Energy for transport (MJ)
95%
(0%) 86 000
30%
(0%) 15 000
44%
(1%) 16 000
49%
(1%) 14 000
19%
(0%) 6 500
Public transport share

(% mot.transp)
< 1%
22%
24%
27%
25
73%
Mobility / densities
Low average urban densities are linked to
high car usage/dependence and very high transport energy consumption. Car ownership is high as well as GDP/capita
High average urban densities are linked to
high public transport usage and low transport energy consumption. Car ownership and GDP/capita are low to average with considerable variations
4. Car ownership evolution
27
Voitures / 1'000 hab. en Suisse
the Swiss motorisation case

17 y +100
Cars /1000 500

450
9y 7y 7y 8y 8y +40 +50 +100 +100 +100
Representative of
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Western Europe trends: 55 years (1905-1960) to reach 100 autos/1000 20 years (1960-1980) to gain 300 autos/1000 20 years(1980-2000) to gain another 100 and reach 500autos/1000
1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
0
1935
Anne
1945
54
61
68
76
84
2001 28
Motorization sustained growth

Multi-motorisation per household Young people higher motorisation
(motorcycle, second hand car, car leasing) Higher motorisation in suburban, rural and leisure areas than in city centers +ring 1 Large employer motorisation / car fleets Car ownership loosely linked to income
29
5. Dynamics of sustainability
Sustainability is not new Sustainable policies can be viewed as an integration and
combination of successive emerging issue solving processes During the 50 year urban mobility growth period, emerging issues have been incorporated layer by layer into a more or less global sustainable? package Major issues have emerged about every 5 to 10 years and have remained present ever since
30
Sustainability + diversity
Sustainability layers emerge with different
timelines according to local political, economical, social and cultural orientations and constraints Northern Europe is 10 to 20 years ahead of Southern Europe on deployment of most sustainability parameters Mobility total growth patterns and global modal split mobility market breakdown vary widely from countries to countries within Europe
31
Sustainability parameters
Seven generic parameters can be
schematically identified:
Safety (since 1960) Energy (since 1970) Local environment - quality of life (1975) Urban sprawl (1980) Equity / solidarity (1985) Global environment - climate change (1990) Sustainable development (1995)
..sustainability and safety

50 year experience shows that considerable progress can
be made in transport safety-- particularly in road safety in urban, intercity and rural areas In Europe, fatal road accident numbers have decreased 3 times while traffic grew 5 times in 20 years (current rates are 15 times less) Resource investment in safety promotion, education, engineering, deployment, systematic enforcement must remain high, consistent and without discontinuity Speed limits and alcohol at the wheel campaigns are tremendously expanded everywhere all the time
sustainability and energy

Energy consumption in transport is and remains
a big issue since the first oil crisis in early 70s Considerable technological progress towards higher fuel efficiency have been and will still be made Considerable technological progress towards more ecologically efficient transport vehicles (gasoline+diesel +other fuels) Very high cost of oil is accelerating the drive towards alternative energies
sustainability and local environment

Transport pollution major threat to health Quality of life associated with clean
environment Considerable progress have being made on environmentally compatible transport systems through rehabilitation or new projects Air+water pollution+noise are the main impacts, which can be overcome by systematic mandatory deployment of environmental engineering
sustainability and urban sprawl

Europe has rather high density pre-
automobile City centres and first ring suburbs Low density, highly automobile dependent urban sprawl (American style) is considered as non sustainable Urban densification efforts are systematically being sought in combination with public transport system development
sustainability and equity

Provision of minimum public transport
basic mobility services to all is sought in many countries Provision for transport to all client groups-the young, the poor, the old Public transport partly paid by employer
38
sustainability and global environment

Tremendous amount of research being
carried out worldwide to understand Global warming, predict and define orientations toward higher sustainability Role of transport (air/land/maritime) has to be better identified to sketch solutions European research extremely active in this global domain
sustainability and sustainability

Integration of economic, environmental
and social sustainability components such as previously described, defines a wide range of sustainable policies Some transport and urban development policies are long term like city form and urban network structure Most others are medium to short term like traffic management
6. Long term orientations

Urban planning and transport development
are interdependent, but disjointed at most policy and institutional levels Urban sprawl and dispersed mobility patterns lead to public transport weakening and less sustainable mobility development Structuring urban form with high density nodes and corridors is of strategic importance for sustainable development
Increasing urban densities in subcenters, urban corridors and nodes

URB CAR PT
Most european land planning

NMT
PAR FR
concepts and regulations promote higher densities in areas well served by public transport These policies are valid for all new developments Dutch ABC policy to match land use densities with appropriate transport means
42
Major boulevard redesign with public transport and higher densities

URB CAR PT
Replacement of auto traffic lanes
PAR FR
NMT
by high performance public transport : light rail, exclusive bus lanes, reserved bus corridors, busways
Urban transit mall redesign, larger
and more convivial public space, systematic on-street parking removal, bicycle networks
Redeployment of rail systems

URB CAR PT
Renewal of under-used freight rail
PAR FR
NMT
infrastructures Exclusive right-of-way rail public transport is the most powerful metropolitan transport vector
Many possibilities to explore and develop :

existing line improvement or/and extension freight line conversion to passenger service dualmode interconnection : suburban rail /urban lightrail network interconnexion : regional express rail system linkages
7.
Short/Medium term orientations
Reducing Green House effects calls for faster
actions, chiefly in the transport sector

Some EST Environmentally Sustainable Transport
analysts state that:

half the effort towards achieving more EST comes from
technological improvements to the transport system

the other half will come from making transport smarter,
using cars more efficiently on shorter journeys in more compact cities

Short-medium term measures

Traffic management Traffic calming Public transport performance improvements Parking diversified strategies, controls, taxing Urban congestion pricing Road freight transport pricing
46
Traffic management
Areawide centralized traffic management command and
control is essential to improve metropolitan transport operations All transport mode integrated ticketing and information systems Areawide parking supply/demand on time information Bus transport systematic priority lane network with route operation optimisation Integrated traffic management is crucial to handle megaevent situations like the Olympics
Traffic calming
URB CAR PT
Main goal = harmonise traffic

NMT
PAR FR
operations and behaviour with local living needs Traffic calming is succesfully applied to whole urban areas subdivided in alveolar zones Major benefits in terms of security, liveability, conviviality
Better public transport performance

Break the vicious circle
of public transport deterioration Systematic introduction of public transport priorities Gains of up to 20% commercial speed and productivity by appropriate traffic management
6 Car traffic Car traffic and parking and parking pressure pressure increase increase
1 More More Urban Urban road road congestion congestion
2 Lowerpublic Lower public transport transport commercial commercial speeds speed
5 More PT More PT customers customers transfer to transfer to the car the car
4 Public transport Public transport productivity productivity decrease and decrease and fare increase fare increase
3 Longertravel Longer travel times times quality Quality of of services service decline decline
49
Urban parking control strategies

URB CAR PT
Control of parking supply is the most
PAR FR
NMT
powerful mobility management tool in European cities Commuter modal choice is dictated by parking availability at the work place
New Mobility Plans include strong metropolitan wide parking control strategies with :
new parking standards (ceilings instead of minima) deterrence of free workplace parking parking prohibition on public transport boulevards metropolitan wide park + ride promotion
Urban congestion pricing

Road pricing eliminates 15-20% extra peak
traffic load which produces traffic congestionin dense city centres Road pricing peak traffic load reductions substantially improve public transport operations = traffic win - win solution Road pricing permitsredistribution of revenues to strengthen public transport
Road freight transport pricing

To induce freight container transport shift
from road to rail, tolls are levied on truck transport (to finance rail development and road maintenance) in certain countries of Europe (Germany, Switzerland, Austria,etc) These freight tolls are function of load, distance and of truck environmental cleanliness
8. Perspectives
Monitoring of sustainable project and policy
results are highly complex and resource demanding-- but are indispensable for further sustainability improvements Inversing mobility patterns takes time even with very strong and efficient planning, policy and implementation actions
53
Inversing travel patterns towards more sustainable urban mobilites

Ambitious objectives C urrent trends Trend inversion
More sust inable a development Indicative values : PT traf fic +50% by 2010 CA R traffc- 20% by 2010 i
+50% PT - 20% CAR
More sustainabl e development Indicative values : 2% f all in TC cust omers/year 2 to 3% growt in V P traf ic/year h f Indicative values : +30% traffic PTen 2010 +0% traf i CA R en 2010 fc +50% PT
1995
1995
1995
-20% CAR
2015
2015
Non -su stai able n development
2015
Non-sustai abl e n development
54

Transport and Sustainability in Europe: Curso de Mobilidade e Sustentabilidade

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transport and Sustainability in Europe: Curso de Mobilidade e Sustentabilidade

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Curso de Mobilidade e Sustentabilidade

Transporte e Sustentabilidade na Europa