villa mondragone, october 2006

Tools for a sustainable mobility to clash the traffic and pollution in the

urban area: a critical review

Villa Mondragone, October 2006

Carlo CarminucciDirector Research Area of Isfort

IV INTERNATIONAL MEDIA FORUM ON THE PROTECTION OF NATURE “PROTECTION OF NATURE, PROTECTION OF HEALTH”

This presentation is divided into two sections

1. A short description of the characteristics of the demand for urban mobility, starting from data supplied by “Audimob”, Observatory on Italians’ Mobility Styles and Behaviors

2. A concise review of the policies and measures for a sustainable urban mobility, with a few examples of good practices

Villa Mondragone october 2006Tools for sustainable mobility

First section

THE DEMAND FOR URBAN MOBILITY:MAIN OUTLINES

Cars, increasingly more the monopolists in urban transport (percentage share of journeys)

9,8

67,5

22,7

9,8

68,0

22,2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2004 2005

Towns over 100,000 inhabitans

8,4

78,9

12,77,6

81,9

10,6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2004 2005

Total 10,0

61,3

28,6

11,6

60,6

28,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2004 2005

Towns over 250,000 inhabitans

7,8

83,4

8,8 6,6

88,0

5,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2004 2005

Towns less than 100,000 inhabitans

Motorcycles

Cars

Public transport


Public transport holds out in medium and large towns (percentage share of journeys)


Total

10,612,712,313,6

11,711,8

5

20

35

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

22,2

26,7 27,430,5

28,5 28,6 28,4

7,2 7,39,1 8,3 8,8

5,4

22,722,424,7

22,522,3

5

20

35

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Towns over 100,000 inhabitans Towns less than 100,000 inhabitansTowns over 250,000 inhabitans

29,927,6

30,1

15,7

11,4

18,4

26,8 25,427,1

17,8

24,8

16,6

9,8 10,77,8

0

10

20

30

40

Till 1 km From 1 to 2 km From 2 to 5 km From 5 to 10 km Over 10 km

30,534,7

32,2

4,7 5,3 4,2

29,4 30,232,5

35,4

29,831,1

0

10

20

30

40

Work Study Family management Spare time71,8 70,9 72,9

28,2 29,1 27,1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Sistematic journeys Non sistematic journeys

The basic segmentations of the demand for urban mobility (% of journeys)

MotivationsMotivations

FrequencyFrequency

LengthLength


2003 2004 2005

Urban mobility in towns with over 100,000 inhabitants: length of journeys by transport means (% of journeys)

Till 1 KmFrom 1 to

2 KmFrom 2 to

5 KmFrom 5 to

10 KmOver 10

KmTotal

Pedestrian mobility 75,0 31,3 9,1 24,8

Bicycles 4,4 9,5 3,5 1,3 0,4 3,8

Motocycles 2,7 6,2 8,0 9,4 9,9 7,0

Cars 15,4 42,8 59,7 63,3 67,7 48,4

Public transport 2,3 10,0 18,8 20,7 12,4 13,4

Combined transport (public and private means)

0,2 0,2 1,0 5,4 9,6 2,6

Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0100,

0


Fonte: Isfort, Osservatorio “Audimob” sulla mobilità, anni vari

6,4

5,9

11,4

18,7

22,7

24,7

53,1

59,7

45,8

21,8

11,8

18,2

200320042005

3,8

4,1

6,3

13,1

19,6

14,2

43,4

50,1

38,7

39,7

26,2

40,8

200320042005

2,6

2,8

10,4

11,2

13,9

18,1

51,0

47,9

49,1

35,2

35,4

22,4

200320042005

Autobus, tram

Metropolitana

Treno locale

5,88

6,04

6,29

6,18

6,81

6.91

Punteggi medi

6,86

6,51

6,95

Per niente soddisfatto (punteggi 1-3) Abbastanza soddisfatto (punteggi 6-7) Poco soddisfatto (punteggi 4-5) Molto soddisfatto (punteggi 8-10)Per niente soddisfatto (punteggi 1-3) Abbastanza soddisfatto (punteggi 6-7) Poco soddisfatto (punteggi 4-5) Molto soddisfatto (punteggi 8-10)

Satisfaction indexes for public transport (% of population and averages scores 1-10)


Buses, tram

Underground

Local train

No satisfaction (averages 1-3)

Low satisfaction (averages 4-5)

Medium satisfaction (averages 6-8)

High satisfaction (averages 9-10)

Averages scores

The average speed of public transport is on the decrease

Auto

20

25

30

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Mezzi pubblici

10

15

20

25

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Comuni con oltre 100.000 abitanti Grandi città Comuni <100.000 abitanti Totale

20012004

Comuni <100.000 abitantiTutta la popolazione

Grandi città

Mezzi privati (km/ h)

Comuni con 100.000 e piùabitanti 22,121,424,624,0

22,721,824,323,9

200523,522,524,524,2

2001Mezzi pubblici (km/ h)

14,314,317,415,6

200416,616,717,817,2

200514,814,417,515,8

Auto

20

25

30

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Mezzi pubblici

10

15

20

25

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Comuni con oltre 100.000 abitanti Grandi città Comuni <100.000 abitanti TotaleComuni con oltre 100.000 abitanti Grandi città Comuni <100.000 abitanti Totale

20012004

Comuni <100.000 abitantiTutta la popolazione

Grandi città

Mezzi privati (km/ h)

Comuni con 100.000 e piùabitanti 22,121,424,624,0

22,721,824,323,9

200523,522,524,524,2

2001Mezzi pubblici (km/ h)

14,314,317,415,6

200416,616,717,817,2

200514,814,417,515,8

Cars Public transport


Towns over 100,000 inhabitants

Towns over 250,000 inhabitants

Towns less than 100,000 inhabitants

Total

Cars Public Transport

Judgment on the measures designed to reduce traffic and pollution

2005 2004

Apply discounts on public transport season tickets 8,03 7,45

Prevent the circulation of heavy vehicles within the cities 7,86 7,68

Increase the preferential lanes and routes for public transport 7,42 6,85

Prohibit car traffic in old town centers and other crowded zones 7,30 7,07

Modify the opening hours of shops 6,67 6,44

Promote car-pooling arrangements 6,47 6,64

Cause non-residents to pay car parks (park pricing) 5,18 5,27

Charge for the access to old town centers and to the roads obstructed by traffic (road pricing)

4,83 5,11

The opinion of residents in the medium and large towns (average scores 1-10)


Judgment on the provisions to fight pollution (%)

The following provisions are deemed to have little or no effectiveness


11,6

15,016,7

23,0

19,3

26,623,4

29,2

26,5

40,0

0

15

30

45

Divieto di circolazioneper i veicoli più

inquinanti (auto noncatalitiche, vecchi diesel,

vecchi motorini)

Controllo periodico deigas di scarico delle auto

(bollino blu)

Blocco del traffico inalcune giornate

(domeniche ecologiche)

Divieto totale dellacircolazione nelle

giornate di emergenza

Circolazione a targhealterne

2004

2005

2004

2005

Traffic ban for the most polluting vehicles (non-

catalytic cars, old diesels, old mopeds)

Regular control of the exhaust

gases of cars (blue stamp)

Traffic ban on given days (ecological Sundays)

Total traffic ban on days

emergency

Circulation by alternate license

plates

Second section

POLICIES AND MEASURES FOR A SUSTAINABLE URBAN MOBILITY: A

CONCISE REVIEW

A summary of policies and measures for a sustainable mobility in the urban area

Policies Measures

1. Fares and pricing Road pricing

Park pricing

2. Management of the demand for urban mobility

Traffic calming

Limitation of vehicle traffic

Car-pooling

Car-sharing

Information Technology (ITS)

3. Public transport Bus priority

Tariff integration

Infomobility

4. Not pollutant modes of transport Bicycle and pedestrian mobility

5. Land use and transport Integrated planning between transport and land use


Concrete actions: road pricing

Consolidate practices

Singapore (1975)

Middle towns in Norway: Bergen, Oslo, Trondheim (end of ‘80)

London

Stockholm

Studies and Projects

Middle towns in UK (Bristol, Edinburgh)

Paris, Marseille

Genoa, Rome, Milan (studies and experiments)


A successful case: London’s congestion A successful case: London’s congestion chargecharge

Introduced in 2003, after many years of studies and modeling simulations.

The interested zone (only on weekdays) is delimited by the Inner Ring Road (22 sq. km.). Starting from February 2007, the area will be extended to the west of the city (a further 20 sq. km.).

After merely a year, considerable results have already been attained: sizable reduction in car traffic (-39%), increase in public transport (+38%), decrease in bus waiting time (-30%), decrease in the number of accidents (-9%), and decrease in traffic emissions (-12%, nitrogen oxides and fine dusts).

Unexpected negative effects: nearly 50% lower returns than expected owing to the extremely high reduction in the number of cars entering the city and the high number of cars that are exempted from the charge.


Car sharing replaces the ownership of a car with a system of car rental by a community of users (multi-owned cars for several users). Car sharing is considered an efficient alternative to the ownership of a car for users who cover less than 10,000 km a year. The introduction of the car-sharing services aims at:separating the use of a car from its ownership, and this applies in particular to that that share of motorists who does not drive the car on a regular basis for its journeys;minimizing vehicle traffic by stimulating the use of collective transport;reducing the needs for parking spaces in crowded urban areas, through a drop of the population motorization rates

Concrete actions: car-sharing


Concrete actions: car sharing

Starting from the 1980s, a growing recourse to car-sharing arrangements has been reported in a few central European countries (Germany, The Netherlands, and Switzerland) and, later on, in the United States and Canada. Considered as a whole, the three European countries rely on over 100 organizations and in excess of 100,000 users. In the United States, 17 car-sharing organizations involve nearly 76,500 members (in 2005) with a vehicle fleet of 1,200 cars. In recent years, a few interesting initiatives have also been developed in Austria, Denmark, France and Italy.

The spread of the car-sharing service proceeded at the same rate as the development and spread of the technologies applied to the mobility sector: telecommunication systems to manage reservations and car-sharing services (web portals for communication among members and the operation headquarters), smart cards for access and financial management (invoicing system), satellite control of vehicles (GPS) and so on. Villa Mondragone october 2006Tools for sustainable mobility

The mobility of urban areas in Europe and particularly in Italy combines well with the bicycle mode of travel (short-distances, facility of access and parking, etc.).

However, this potential is “frustrated” by the conflict between bikes and vehicle traffic.

The promiscuity of the routes and, above all, the speed disparity between bikes and cars reduce to a considerable extent the safety conditions related to the weaker mode of transport.

The situation is compounded by the poor quality of urban environments, often characterized by high levels of atmospheric and acoustic pollution. A few experiences: the Bike Offices, “Call-a-bike”, “Piedibus”.

Concrete actions: supporting the use of bicycles


A final remark

Time and money are scarce!

Urban policies for a sustainable mobility should be:

1. diversified and integrated

2. focused on local pattern

3. effective (strategic level)

4. efficient (operative level)


Thanks for your attention!

Carlo Carminucci

[email protected]

villa mondragone, october 2006

Documents