Date post: | 27-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | william-reeves |
View: | 221 times |
Download: | 3 times |
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative
DEMAND MANAGEMENT Working Group
Directorate-General for Energy and
Transport
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Luca Persia (University “La Sapienza” – Rome)
Ian Bewick (TTR) - Rapporteur
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
The Group
• Dublin
• Ile de France
• London
• Oulu
• The Hague
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
The theme
• Demand Management is … a broad set of policies and measures aimed at reducing/rationalising transport demand on a network or part of it, in order to reduce traffic congestion and externalities
• … a very wide set of indicators collected during Year 1
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
From Year 1 to Year 2
• Due to the big effort requested by data collection, participant cities decided to:
− Put more emphasis on experience exchange, rather than on indicator collection
− Refine some quantitative figures, while introducing several qualitative indicators
− Focus on two well defined themes
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Focus of the group on:
1. Integration of land-use and transport planning
2. Parking policies
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Some results: the site visits• 3 interesting and fruitful visits to:
1. Dublin (Focus on: integration of land-use and public transport planning)
2. The Hague (Focus on: integration of land-use and transport planning)
3. Ile-de-France (Focus on intermodality)
• Reactions on transferability
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Some results: quantitative indic.
• Data on relationships between land-use
and transport -> interesting findings
• Data on parking -> main gap in the
urban transport databases
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Population of the cities
0
2.000.000
4.000.000
6.000.000
8.000.000
10.000.000
12.000.000
London The Hague Oulu Dublin Ile de France
Regional
Metropolitan
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Population density
0
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
London The Hague Oulu Dublin Ile de France
Metropolitan
Regional
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Job density
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
London The Hague Oulu Dublin
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Pop. density and car usage
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
The Hague London Ile de France Dublin Oulu
40%
42%
44%
46%
48%
50%
52%
54%
56%
58%
Pop. density
Car share
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Job density and car usage
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
The Hague London Ile de France Dublin Oulu
40%
42%
44%
46%
48%
50%
52%
54%
56%
58%
Job density
Car share
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Average trip length
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
London The Hague Oulu Dublin Ile de France
Private modes
Public transport
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Trip length and city size
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Oulu The Hague Dublin London Ile de France
0
1.000.000
2.000.000
3.000.000
4.000.000
5.000.000
6.000.000
7.000.000
8.000.000
9.000.000
10.000.000
Priv. modes
PT
Population
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
PT trip length and pop. density
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Oulu Dublin Ile de France London The Hague
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
PT lenght
Pop. density
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
N. of parking spaces in CBD
0
50.000
100.000
150.000
200.000
250.000
London The Hague Oulu Dublin Ile de France
On-street
Off-street
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
P+R spaces per 1000 residents
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
14,0
London The Hague Oulu Dublin Ile de France
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Some results: qualitative indic.
• Drawn from PLUME
• Presented with different levels of details:London The Hague Oulu Dublin Ile-de-France No Yes Yes Yes Yes No TfL Policy but individual boroughs may have their own policies
Parking in the centre in public facilities is expensive, except for essential car users.
With implementation of 1000 space underground car park in the city centre, the objective is to reduce parking spaces on street and also to increase the cost of parking
Yes, in Central Areas in particular although it is Local Authority led. For example parking charges in the Dublin City Council are zonal based, with 5 tariff zones.
Not for residents but for visitors in the business centre of Paris
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Mono/poly centric
London The Hague
Oulu Dublin Ile-de-France
Now Poly Mono Mono Mono
Long term
Poly Mono Mixed Poly Poly
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
One authority for land-use and transport planning?
0
1
2
3
4
5
Yes No
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
One integrated plan for land-use and transport?
0
1
2
3
4
5
Yes No
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Parking policies linked to development (standards)?
0
1
2
3
4
5
Yes No
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Parking policies linked to public transport?
0
1
2
3
4
5
Yes No
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Public incentives to locate close to public transport?
0
1
2
3
4
5
Yes No
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Policy aimed at increasing cycling/ pedestrian facilities?
0
1
2
3
4
5
Yes No
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Policy aimed at increasing cost of car parking?
0
1
2
3
4
5
Yes No
Urban Transport Benchmarking Year Two
Some conclusions
• Integration of land-use and transport planning is a main priority for participant cities
• Gaps on parking data (n., revenues, fines) can affect correct planning
• People prefer to discuss, rather than to measure: balanced mix of quantitative/qualitative indicators