philippe bovy

8/2/2019 Philippe Bovy

1/55

Sao Paulo, Junho2005

Transporte e Sustentabilidade naEuropa

1

Curso de Mobilidade e SustentabilidadeTransporte e Sustentabilidade na Europa

Transport and

Sustainability in EuropeHon. Prof. Ph.H. Bovy

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

Olympic Transport Expert

http://mobility-bovy.ch


2/55


3/55



3

Content--8 points

1. Introduction: Europe andtransport/mobility sustainability

2. Metropolitan transport/mobilitydevelopment : the case of PARIS

3. Urban density and mobilitymultiple interdependences

4. Car ownership evolution


4/55


5/55



5

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) transportsystem with rather strong rail networks

Cities with the densest rail transport networks

Intermediate average urban densities (>50 hab/ha)


6/55



6

population trends

1975 ! 1995 ! 2015

World 4100 +39% 5700 +28% 7300

Africa 415 +73% 720 +64% 1180

Asia 2400 +43% 3440 +27% 4380

Europe 680 +7% 730 -2% 715

Latin America 320 +48% 475 +32% 625

North America 245 +22% 300 +17% 350


7/55



7

urbanization trends

1975 ! 1995 ! 2015

World 38% +21% 46% +22% 56%

Africa 25% +44% 36% +33% 48%

Asia 24% 42% 34% +41% 48%

Europe 67% + 7% 72% 12% 81%

Latin America 61% +21% 74% +11% 82%

North America 74% + 4% 77% + 9% 84%


8/55



8

and sustainability

Numerous definitions, increasinglysophisticated and often technocratic

Sustainability = Search for balanced

development patterns incorporatingmobility growth

Sustainability perceived differently indifferent cultures

Northern European cultures sensitive tocollective and ecological values + discipline


9/55



9

sustainability

Southern European cultures moreindividualistic, less ecologically oriented

The search for more balanced developmentis not new --much earlier than thesustainability concept invention around 1990

Pragmatic and dynamic definition - point 5


10/55


11/55



11

Metropolitan transport /

mobility development--ParisIn most metropolitan areas:

higher density metropolitan central areas,where public transport is the most attractive

and efficient, are loosing population and jobs

low density peripheral sectors, where publictransport is much less attractive and efficient,and where the automobile is dominant, are

gaining population and jobs

2.


12/55



12

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


13/55


14/55



14

Current trends are the opposite:

In the Paris Region (11.5 millions inhabitants) last 15 yearmobility trends indicate:automobile travel + 35 %public transport travel + 5 %walking and two-wheel travel - 20 %

If no significant policy changes are made, the Paris 2015Master Plan will lead to :+ 55 % of motorized passengerkilometers

of which 2/3 by private cars


15/55



15

Paris Region concentric travel patterns

Paris

Int. suburbs

Ext. suburbs

Outlying suburbs

New towns

Periphery - axes

Periph. - isolated

Rural zones

0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%RAVEL MODAL SPLITT (%)VERAGE DAILY TRIP GENERATION PER

INHABITAN T

A

EGENDL :

UBLIC TRAN SPP .UTOA

ALKWTHERSOSource : Plan de dplacements u rbains - diagnostic, Paris, juin 1998

OBILITY AND MODAL SPLIT AT

RESIDENTIAL TRIP ORIGIN

M ODAL SPLIT AT TRIP DESTINATIONM

HR/Dortmund/9.6.99


16/55



16

Paris Region motorization and modal

split patterns

0.34

0.35

0.44

0.38

0.37

0.33

0.33

0.27Paris

Int. suburbs

Ext. suburbs

Outlying suburbs

New towns

Periphery - axes

Periph. - isolated

Rural zones

0.20 0.400.350.300.25

AR OWNERSHIP RATIOC UBLIC TRANSPORT SHAREP

UBLICTRANSPORT TRIP SHARE OFTO TAL

MOTORIZED TRAVEL

PUT O MOB ILE NHABI T ANT A / I

0.45 0% 25% 50% 75%

EGENDL :UBLIC TRANSPORT MODAL SPLITP

AT DESTINATION

AT RESIDENTIAL ORIGIN HR/Dortmund/7.6.99


17/55



17

Ile de France Region mobility patterns

24%

29%

47%

58%

18%

24%

65%

12%

23%41%

30%

29%

55%

20%

25%

35 %

30 %

35 %

PARIS

FORECASTS 1990-2015[millions of inhabitants and jobs]

24%

29%

47%

Population

1990 2015

Jobs

TOTAL

10.65 + 11%

5.10 + 14%

58%

18%

24%

65%

12%

23%41%

30%

29%

55%

20%

25%

OUTER RING

Isolated and rural

INNER RING

Inner suburbs

OUTER RING

Corridors

INNER RING

Outer suburbs

Population

INNER RING 1990 2015

Jobs

4.00 + 4%

1.75 + 10%

Population

OUTER RING 1990 2015

Jobs

4.50 + 22%

1.55 + 37%

Legend :

5%

30 %

35 %

CAR -

Motorised

IndividualTransport

PT - Public

Transport

NMT - Non-motorisedTransport

PARIS

2.15

1.80

+ 0%

- 2%

Population

1990 2015

Jobs

10 km

Growth

Growth

GrowthGrowth


18/55



18

Urban density and Mobility

multiple interdependences3.Public transport modal share

Parking cost

Average commercial speed

Distance budget

Car ownership

Parking availability

Transport cost budget

Maximum

Minimum

Average daily time budget

Accommodation/housing budget

Non-motorised journeys modalshare

b)

a)

c)

d)

e)

g)

h)

j)

i)

k)

l)

Automobile modal share

URBANLOW Intermediate HIGH

Average daily number of journeysf)

Parameters

a) to m)

URBANDENSITY m) Transport energy consumption


19/55



19

Growing mobility parameters with:

higher urban densities

public transport modal share

non-motorized (on foot+bicycle) modal share parking costs

housing and accommodation budgets


20/55



20

Increasing mobility parameters with:

decreasing urban densities 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


21/55



21

Constant mobility parameters

average daily travel time budget

average daily number of journeys per capita

In a high mobility environment, twomobility parameters remain constant(Zahevi paradigm):


22/55

Net overallurban density

LOW

< 25 h+j/ha

INTERMEDIATE

50-100 h+j/ha

HIGH

> 250 h+j/ha

Automobile use(km/person/year)

Public transportuse

(journeys/person

/year)

Fuel/gasolineconsumption in

transport(MJ/person/year)

> 10000 < 5000

< 50 > 250

> 55000 < 15000

Legend :

CAR : Car

PT: Public transport

NMT : Non-motorized transport

Density (h+j/ha) : number of inhabitants (h) andjobs (j) per net hectare (ha)of urban area (excludinggreenspaces, stretches ofwater)

CAR

NMTPT

NMT

PT

CAR

NMTPT

CAR

Source: according to Newman/Kenworthy, Sustainability and Cities, 1999

Representativesituations

North Americanand Australianmetropolises

Europeanmetropolises

35000-20000

Indicative overallmodal distribution

Asian metropolisesand world major city

centers


23/55


24/55



24

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 inhabitantsd) 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)


25/55



25

1995 Houston Madrid Paris LondonHongKong

Density (hab/ha) 9 85 50 60 320

GDP per capita 31 000 18 000 41 000 22 000 23 000

Car ownership (c/1000)

Motorcycle own.(m/1000)

695

(5)

430

(25)

420

(60)

330

(10)

4 5

(5)

Total mobility (trips/day) 4.65 1.95 2.85 2.80 2.80

Mobility by car

Mobility by bicycle

95%

(0%)

30%

(0%)

44%

(1%)

49%

(1%)

19%

(0%)

Energy for transport (MJ) 86 000 15 000 16 000 14 000 6 500

Public transport share(% mot.transp)

< 1% 22% 24% 27% 73%


26/55



26

Mobility / densities

Low average urban densities are linked tohigh car usage/dependence and very hightransport energy consumption. Car ownership

is high as well as GDP/capita

High average urban densities are linked tohigh public transport usage and low transportenergy consumption. Car ownership and

GDP/capita are low to average withconsiderable variations


27/55



27

4.Car ownership evolution


28/55



28

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

the Swiss motorisation case

1945 54 61 68 76 84 2001

Cars

/10009 y

+40

7 y

+50

7 y

+100

8 y

+100

8 y

+100

17 y

+100Representative of

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 andreach 500autos/1000


29/55


30/55



30

Sustainability is not new

Sustainable policies can be viewed as an integration andcombination of successive emerging issue solving

processes During the 50 year urban mobility growth period,

emerging issues have been incorporated layer bylayer into a more or less global sustainable? package

Major issues have emerged about every 5 to 10 years

and have remained present ever since

5. Dynamics of sustainability


31/55



31

Sustainability + diversity

Sustainability layers emerge with differenttimelines according to local political, economical,social and cultural orientations and constraints

Northern Europe is 10 to 20 years ahead ofSouthern Europe on deployment of mostsustainability parameters

Mobility total growth patterns and global modalsplit mobility market breakdown vary widely from

countries to countries within Europe


32/55



32

Sustainability parameters

Seven generic parameters can beschematically 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)


33/55


34/55



34

..sustainability and safety

50 year experience shows that considerable progress canbe made in transport safety-- particularly in road safetyin urban, intercity and rural areas

In Europe, fatal road accident numbers have decreased 3

times while traffic grew 5 times in 20 years (current ratesare 15 times less)

Resource investment in safety promotion, education,engineering, deployment, systematic enforcement mustremain high, consistent and without discontinuity

Speed limits and alcohol at the wheel campaigns aretremendously expanded everywhere all the time


35/55



35

sustainability and energy

Energy consumption in transport is and remainsa big issue since the first oil crisis in early 70s

Considerable technological progress towards

higher fuel efficiency have been and willstill be made

Considerable technological progress towardsmore ecologically efficient transport vehicles(gasoline+diesel +other fuels)

Very high cost of oil is accelerating the drivetowards alternative energies


36/55



36

sustainability and local

environment Transport pollution major threat to health

Quality of life associated with cleanenvironment

Considerable progress have being made onenvironmentally compatible transportsystems through rehabilitation or new projects

Air+water pollution+noise are the mainimpacts, which can be overcome by systematicmandatory deployment of environmentalengineering


37/55



37

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 asnon sustainable

Urban densification efforts are systematicallybeing sought in combination with public

transport system development


38/55



38

sustainability and equity

Provision of minimum public transportbasic mobility services to all is sought inmany countries

Provision for transport to all client groups--the young, the poor, the old

Public transport partly paid by employer


39/55



39

sustainability and global

environmentTremendous amount of research being

carried out worldwide to understandGlobal warming, predict and define

orientations toward higher sustainabilityRole of transport (air/land/maritime) has to

be better identified to sketch solutions

European research extremely active in this

global domain


40/55



40

sustainability and sustainability

Integration of economic, environmentaland social sustainability components suchas previously described, defines a wide

range of sustainable policies Some transport and urban development

policies are long term like city form andurban network structure

Most others are medium to short term liketraffic management


41/55



41

Long term orientations

Urban planning and transport developmentare interdependent, but disjointed at mostpolicy and institutional levels

Urban sprawl and dispersed mobility patternslead to public transport weakening and lesssustainable mobility development

Structuring urban form with high density

nodes and corridors is of strategicimportance for sustainable development

6.


42/55



42

Increasing urban densities insubcenters, urban corridors and nodes

Most european land planningconcepts and regulationspromote higher densities in

areas well served by publictransport

These policies are valid forall new developments

Dutch ABC policy to match

land use densities withappropriate transport means

URB

PT

NMT

FR

PAR

CAR


43/55



43

Major boulevard redesign with publictransport and higher densities

URB

PT

NMT

FR

PAR

CAR

Replacement of auto traffic lanesby high performance publictransport : light rail, exclusive buslanes, reserved bus corridors,busways

Urban transit mall redesign, largerand more convivial public space,systematic on-street parkingremoval, bicycle networks


44/55



44

Redeployment of rail systems

URB

PT

NMT

FR

PAR

CAR

Renewal of under-used freight railinfrastructures

Exclusive right-of-way rail publictransport is the most powerfulmetropolitan 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


45/55



45

Short/Medium term

orientations

Reducing Green House effects calls for fasteractions, chiefly in the transport sector

Some EST Environmentally Sustainable Transportanalysts state that:

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

the other half will come from making transport smarter,

using cars more efficiently on shorter journeys in morecompact cities

7.


46/55



46

Short-medium term measures

Traffic management

Traffic calming

Public transport performance improvements Parking diversified strategies, controls, taxing

Urban congestion pricing

Road freight transport pricing


47/55



47

Traffic management

Areawide centralized traffic management command andcontrol is essential to improve metropolitan transportoperations

All transport mode integrated ticketing and informationsystems

Areawide parking supply/demand on time information

Bus transport systematic priority lane network with routeoperation optimisation

Integrated traffic management is crucial to handle mega-event situations like the Olympics


48/55



48

Traffic calming

URB

PT

NMT

FR

PAR

CAR

Main goal = harmonise trafficoperations and behaviour withlocal living needs

Traffic calming is succesfullyapplied to whole urban areassubdivided in alveolar zones

Major benefits in terms of

security, liveability, conviviality


49/55



49

Lower public

transportcommercial

speeds

More PTcustomerstransfer to

the car

Car traffic and

parkingpressure

increase

Longer traveltimes

Quality ofservice

decline

Public transportproductivitydecrease andfare increase

More Urbanroad

congestion

Better public transport performance

Break the vicious circleof public transportdeterioration

Systematic

introduction of publictransport priorities

Gains of up to 20%commercial speed andproductivity byappropriate traffic

management

5

More PT

customers

transfer to

the car

6

Car traffic

and parking

pressureincrease

1

More Urbanroad

congestion

4

Public transport

productivity

decrease and

fare increase

3

Longer travel

times quality

of services

decline

2

Lower public

transport

commercialspeed


50/55



50

Urban parking control strategies

URB

PT

NMT

FR

PAR

CAR

Control of parking supply is the mostpowerful mobility management tool inEuropean 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


51/55



51

Urban congestion pricing

Road pricing eliminates 15-20% extra peaktraffic load which produces trafficcongestionin dense city centres

Road pricing peak traffic load reductionssubstantially improve public transportoperations = traffic win - win solution

Road pricing permitsredistribution of

revenues to strengthen public transport


52/55



52

Road freight transport pricing

To induce freight container transport shiftfrom road to rail, tolls are levied on trucktransport (to finance rail development and

road maintenance) in certain countries ofEurope (Germany, Switzerland, Austria,etc)

These freight tolls are function of load,distance and of truck environmental

cleanliness


53/55



53

8.Perspectives

Monitoring of sustainable project and policyresults are highly complex and resourcedemanding-- but are indispensable for further

sustainability improvements Inversing mobility patterns takes time even

with very strong and efficient planning, policyand implementation actions


54/55



54

Inversing travel patterns towardsmore sustainable urban mobilites

Ambitious objectives Current trends Trend inversion

Moresustainable

dev elopment

Non-sustainable

dev elopment

1995

2015

-20% CAR

+50%PT

Non-su stainable

development

1995

2015

Indicative values :

2%fall inTC customers/year

2to3% g rowth inV P traff ic/year

More sustainable

development

1995

2015

Indicative values :PT traf fic +50%by 2010

CAR traffic- 20% by 2010

-20% CAR

+50%PT

Indicative values :

+30% traffic PTen2010

0% traffic CAR en2010+-


55/55

philippe bovy

Documents