Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński University of Gdańsk Pomeranian Association Common Europe Vice-president of the European Cyclists’ Federation Integrated mobility.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński University of Gdańsk Pomeranian Association Common Europe Vice-president of the European Cyclists’ Federation Integrated mobility."— Presentation transcript:

1 Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński University of Gdańsk Pomeranian Association Common Europe Vice-president of the European Cyclists’ Federation Integrated mobility or sustainable urban transport system development patterns The case of Gdańsk Smart Cities Energy Efficiency in Sustainable Urban Development November 5-6, 2014 Ministry of Infrastructure and Development, Warsaw

2 1. Speaker as such Agenda 2. Definition of sustainable/environment friendly urban transport/mobilitypolicy 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 Took part in 11 Velo-city conferences Vice-president of the European Cyclists’ Federation Co-author of the „Concept of cycling system development in Pomeranian Voivodship (Green Paper)” Author of a series of feuilletons „Bicycling into the cities” in a popular Polish daily newspaper 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

4 Definition of environment friendly/sustainable urban mobility/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, wrecks of used cars etc.)

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 principally 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 and long term challenges of an urban transport/mobility 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 Road traffic safety records No. of fatalities resulting from road traffic accidents per 1 M inhabitants in EU-27 in 2011

9 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

10 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

11 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) Increase in average distance of daily commuting trips Deficit of strategic reflection Failure to identify connections between spatial planning and (transport) accessibility issues

12 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)

13 Actual mobility needs – changes in size and shifts in their structure Slow change in the number of daily trips (about 3 per day) High 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?


15 Propositions for substitutes Improvement of walking conditions in city centres Improvement of acccessibility of local railway hubs for all active mobility modes. 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)


17 : Source: Lasse Schelde ‘s presentation at the 4th Congress of Active Mobility ang=pl&_CatID=112&_NewsID=332&_Che ckSum=-203180961.

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 MobiliseInform 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

20 Źródło: :

21 Source:

22 Source: Galewski Program rozwoju komunikacji rowerowej w Trójmieście



25 4. Degradation of exceptional valours of natural and cultural heritage of the agglomeration 2. Declining liveability (noise, accidents/crashes, exhaust gases, deteriorating green areas) 3. Vicious circle – escape of taxpayers to suburbs or peri-urban areas 1. Uncontrolled urban sprawl 5. Increased costs of satisfying basic mobility needs Forecast/expected effects of continuation of current policies

26 3. Extension of the visible and invisible infrastructure for active mobility (walking and cycling) 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 Focus on social information and communication: 4. Development of parking demand management instruments / systems (fees and restrictions) Alternative urban transport policy (genuinely sustainable approach)

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

29 Thank you for your attention

Download ppt "Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński University of Gdańsk Pomeranian Association Common Europe Vice-president of the European Cyclists’ Federation Integrated mobility."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google