Dr Piotr KuropatwińskiUniversity of Gdańsk

Pomeranian Association Common Europe European Cyclists’ Federation

Lessons learnt from the process of

development of sustainable transport

infrastructure in the Gdańsk agglomeration

VELOFORUM CONFERENCE, LVIV

10TH-11TH OCTOBER 2014

1. Speaker as such

Agenda

2. Definition of sustainable/environment friendly urban transport policy

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

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

Definition of environment friendly/sustainable

urban 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, and wrecks of used cars)

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)

Unsustainable urban transport policy

Infrastructure creation and traffic management policy

• focused 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

Operational problems of an urban transport system

(unreflective point of view)

• Congestion (queues) – losses of time

• Lack of (car) parking spaces

• Irregularity/unpredictability/insufficientlycomfortable public transport

• Noise

• Environmental (air) pollution

• Poor road traffic safety

• Effects of a sedentary life style

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

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

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)

• Increased average distance of daily commuting trips

• Deficit of strategic reflection

• Failure to identify connections between spatial planning and (transport) accessibility issues

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)

Actual mobility needs – changes in size and shifts in their structure

• Slow change in the number of daily trips (about 3 per day)

• Higher 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?

www.ecf.com

Propositions for substitutes

• Improvement of walking conditions in city centres

• 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)

www.ecf.com

:Source: Lasse Schelde ‘s presentation at the 4th Congress of Active Mobilityhttp://www.kongresmobilnosci.pl/palio/html.run?_Instance=kma&_PageID=226&_Lang=pl&_CatID=112&_NewsID=332&_CheckSum=-203180961.

Road traffic safety records

No. of fatalities resulting from road traffic accidents per 1 M inhabitantsin EU-27 in 2011

Hierarchy of solutions

To be considered first

To be considered last

Reduction in the number of vehicles (traffic density)

Invisib

le cyclin

gin

frastructu

re

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

Matrix – ecology of actors

Opponents Partners

Outsiders Fans

Involve Cooperate

MobiliseInform

Attitude to the issue at hand

MoreIn

flu

en

ce o

n r

ele

van

t is

su

es

Less

Negative PositiveSource: Lake Sagaris, Cyclists’ Grass Roots Democracy – The importance of strategic participation

Źródło: http://www.rowerowygdansk.pl/ :

Source: http://www.trojmiasto.pl/wiadomosci/Orunia-zielone-swiatlo-dla-hiperwezla-n52349.html

Source: Galewski

Program rozwoju komunikacji

rowerowej w Trójmieście

www.ecf.com

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

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)

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

Feel invited to the 6th Congress of Active Mobility

Gdańsk 2015

You may also visit the

following websites

www.kongresmobilnosci.pl

www.ecf.com

www.streetfilms.org

Thank you for your attention

pkuropatwinski@pswe.org