Sustainable Mobility
Now that all the social, political and economic use the concept of sustainable mobility, one wonders what it means and if there is a common interpretation part of all of them. What do they want the environmental groups or the automotive industry when they propose to address the sustainable mobility?
Because many times the term accompanying measures to push the model displacements in opposite directions. For some mobility sustainable is to keep current trends but seeking more effective technologies to limit the environmental impact caused by vehicles. That is, it is further increasing the number of cars and other vehicles, as well as the mileage for the same, especially in those countries and cities where the engine and car use are not as high as the group of countries to which it belongs hipermotorizados Spain.
A little rule of thumb indicates that engine option to extend to the entire planet is simply not possible in terms of energy resources and materials. It is possible that each two inhabitants of this planet have a car at your disposal and make them thousands of miles annually.
From our point of view, using the concept of sustainable mobility should involve a shift in the pattern of displacement current, so as to change the role of each transport and even modify the overvaluation of the present transport the dominant culture. For transport, the mobility of people and goods, is usually not an end in itself but a means to satisfy needs.
The proposed interpretation of sustainable mobility is therefore to generate a new culture of mobility at all levels and spheres, a new approach to how we do, we value and perceive both displacement and environmental and social consequences. In this sense, we must stress that environmental and social consequences of our mobility model are not reflected only in the local area (pollution, noise, accidents, land use, loss of autonomy of children and the elderly, etc), but also on aggregate, with conditions like climate change, dwindling reserves of fossil fuels or renewable materials and inequality between people, regions and countries.
For urban mobility, this new culture requires The reformulation of policies not only directly related to mobility, but also establishing movement patterns, such as town planning, the infrastructure and economic / fiscal.
The new culture of mobility, the pedestrian should have preferential treatment, with the bicycle and public transport complementary means of transport which should form an alliance. The car would then have a new role, much lesser role and impact.
International experience demonstrates how sustainable mobility policies are most effective if taken into account a couple of golden rules: that the offer drag and invents new demand and the encouragement of alternative transportation is a necessary but not sufficient to change course on mobility.
Improving transport infrastructure and services lead to greater use of the media benefit from such improvements. Thus, a new road traffic induced, ie, modifies the behavior of current and potential users, increasing car use in this case.
The other main idea to consider is that not enough measures to stimulate alternative means of transport to the car to achieve a new balance with this means of locomotion, but it is also necessary to introduce measures deterrent.
This leads to the necessity for a comprehensive mobility strategy that includes many elements that are the foundation of mobility problems, and as complete packages of measures of all kinds, among which it is worth noting the following:
A. Fiscal, economic and regulatory.
* Establish a tax and a pricing system that reward alternative transportation to the automobile and penalizing the irrational use of it.
* Prevent whole transport detract excessive resources of other social needs.
* Use fiscal instruments and rules to penalize vehicles greatest environmental impact and higher risk.
* Establish a legal framework, administrative policy and facilitate the mainstreaming of policies and measures that favor alternative means of transport and discourage car use.
B. Urban planning, land use and mobility.
* Plan the city and its area of \u200b\u200binfluence reduction criteria motorized travel needs.
* Planning for urban growth for accessibility by non-motorized transport (walking, cycling) and public transport.
C. Infrastructure for the car.
* Avoid indiscriminate creation or expansion of existing road capacity.
* Avoid creating new parking spaces to facilitate the use of cars in the city.
D. Incentives for alternative transport to the car.
* Develop plans to improve safety and convenience of pedestrian travel.
* Carry out plans for promoting cycling including bike paths
networks * Perform extensive and profound actions to improve the functionality and attractiveness of public transport.
E. Discouraging car use.
* Establish measures restricting the movement of cars in streets, neighborhoods throughout the city.
Implement a comprehensive policy to discourage car use the car more irrational.
F. Recovery of the street as living space.
* Traffic calming with the introduction of rules and devices to reduce vehicle speeds, creating, for example areas 30 km / h.
* Establish plans and strategies to improve road safety criteria conducive to pedestrian or bicycle.
* Apply the rules of accessibility legislation in the road to facilitate movement of the entire population (including people with disabilities) and remove the so-called barriers.
* Making routine works on the street to improve conditions for pedestrians, bicycles and public transport.
G. Changes in habits and behaviors in mobility.
* apply new criteria for residential street traffic calming friendly and alternative transportation.
* Develop plans for mobility in schools (draft SCHOOL ROAD) to reduce school dependence on the automobile and motorized means.
* business plans in order to encourage use of transportation alternative for workers and visitors to its sites, including governments themselves that generate a significant amount of travel to their workplaces and public attention.
* Make plans to guide the mobility generated by the government to lower standards of environmental and social impact, both in relation to their workers and visitors to its facilities and offices.
* Develop new tools of information dissemination and promotion of the new culture of mobility, to counterbalance the necessarily biased messages reaching the public from the powerful economic interests at stake (automotive industry infrastructure, oil, etc.). Parking
95% of the time of his life private automobiles are stationary. The movement of vehicles is only useful if you ever occurs to park: no movement without parking. This truism has two momentous consequences.
The first is that to ensure or facilitate the expansion of the car has set for decades a series of regulations and policies that facilitate the parking, either in the public space in the buildings either. Without them we could ensure widespread use of private cars.
The second is the reverse of the above: to regulate automobile abuse have also been applied for decades a series of parking regulations and policies to discourage or encourage certain behaviors of motorists.
So, think parking is thinking about the use of private vehicles, so that any proposed project or parking policy can be analyzed from the following two points of view: it serves to stimulate or serves to discourage private car use? Obviously there are other issues relevant partners, including the appropriation of scarce public space for parked cars or parking needs traffic "commercial" (goods vehicles ...), but for the purpose of understanding the environmental and social problem of parking the main thing is that balance between encouraging and discouraging private car use.
Another idea to keep in mind that emerges from this is that policies, projects or parking regulations can not be a single element of the wider politics of traffic and transport, but necessarily part of the same . Are only a part, albeit significant, of a broad set of these policies and therefore can not be regarded as the sole solution nor a panacea to solve the problems of mobility.
Finally, to analyze the measures, projects and parking policies meant to implement the government should do or be a series of questions that are presented in a summary fashion below
Consistency with other more general policies and urban mobility:
Are the measures, projects or policies proposed parking consistent and concurrent with other traffic, urban development and infrastructure to, for example, towards the same goals to discourage private car and improved means of alternative transportation?
undesirable effects in other areas:
Do expected improvements after implementation of the project or policy as an area park or neighborhood involve the transfer of problems to the surrounding area or elsewhere? Sometimes these effects are not immediate and the consequences need to provide medium and long term behavior of the people.
Public Space:
to adopt "The measure would release more and better public space for other uses more interesting and effective: stay and play areas, space for pedestrians and bicycles, public transport priority? How much public space is released and what is your location?
Car usage:
After applying the new policy or the construction of new parking will there be greater use of cars in the area, both residents and visitors?
improvement or worsening of alternative transportation:
After the project, regulation or policy provided "pedestrians can walk more comfortable and safe? Will the bike new opportunities to travel also so comfortable and safe, or to park? What about public transport, will more attractive to use?
economic costs: Often
car user does not pay even the costs of the measure to its parking lot are you going to pay this time all the costs associated with parking or will receive grants are more or less undercover as advertised? If so, how much?, What kind of motorists will receive more benefits?
Pedestrian areas
We walk for many reasons, for work or school, to shop, to go to the doctor or sports or just for the sheer pleasure of walking. Walk a lot more than some believe (33% of trips in metropolitan areas of Madrid and Barcelona are walking) and the distances traveled on foot are also higher than is commonly believed.
However, despite the weight of pedestrians on the mobility of the cities, the variety of reasons for walking and the distances covered, when proposing improvements for pedestrians only thing that is often thought in pedestrian areas, ie in some areas, usually inner city, where the car was excluded at the apparent conflict between its use and limited space available for other uses of the street and, in particular, Transit of pedestrians. This creates a space where there is actually less fumes, accidents and noise.
Currently, most English cities with a pedestrian area, generally associated with a concentration of shops, bars, offices, institutions and monuments of historic centers, ie, areas often monofunctional, free range uses and actors.
From the standpoint of mobility, pedestrian areas therefore represent a highly localized and partial solution needs to have pedestrians, as you walk or just to shop or go sightseeing, or walks exclusively on a few streets the city center. For this reason have sometimes been described as "Indian reservations" granted "generous" to those outside of them do not have the minimum rights of movement in a safe, comfortable and attractive.
Despite this limited capacity for change in mobility, pedestrian areas tend to generate extreme expectations: some people believe that they can solve all the wrongs of the transport system and there are those who believe that are causing all sorts of urban ills, social and economic. Paradoxically, traders are often the first to oppose the pedestrian but then enjoy the benefits of increased sales generated by the improvement environmental act of purchasing.
A pedestrian areas are often also accused of being the origin of the lack of vitality of a neighborhood non-business hours, for the degradation of traffic in the neighboring areas, the expulsion of former residents and new applications capable of pay the increased price per square meter, the concentration of bars, or the occurrence of nuisance in public space that ultimately impair the quality of neighborhood life.
However, none of these changes can be attributed main mode and exclusively to the pedestrian, but urban policy and mobility that this is a part. For example, are urban policy, housing and land uses that facilitate or hinder the changes in housing shops and offices in the city center, the impetus behind the expulsion of young and elderly who can not afford the rent or buying a home in areas covered by the pedestrian, which allow the concentration of certain shops or pubs, or accepting certain times of opening them.
The pedestrian can help replenish these processes, but the real engines of the same, less visible, they have sought in the general urban policy and management and discipline of the council at the time of applying the regulations.
In a culture dominated by the automobile pedestrian zones have an advantage that helps offset its drawbacks: they have the teaching skills to show the possibilities of an area free of cars, educate on which we lose when we allow cars to dominate the public space .
Ultimately, pedestrian zones are neither a panacea for those who walk and the main cause of the ills of the neighborhoods in which they are implemented. Creation or expansion of existing ones should therefore be assessed by multiple criteria, among them the following:
1. Urban diversity and vitality. Is
down while the other pedestrian planning measures to ensure the maintenance of the resident population and facilities (schools, health centers, etc) and businesses linked to it?
Do you serve to improve the vitality of the neighborhood, creating living spaces, play and stay in the proximity of housing? Or they tend to concentrate activities incompatible with the quality of life for residents?
2. Pedestrian mobility.
Is it part of a plan or program to improve pedestrian mobility throughout the city? Or is exclusively localized and partial improvement no matter even how pedestrians get it?
3. Automobile use.
If you plan to reduce private car use the main question is what is the effect of the pedestrian zone on it, because sometimes the pedestrian streets make improvements in access roads and creating parking for visitors that stimulate contradictory car use?
4. Public transport and cycling.
buses, trams or bicycles take advantage of the pedestrian "to enhance their appeal or are harmed by it?
5. Public space.
traffic recovered space "is intended for different uses, the residence of citizens, the children play? "Gains in environmental quality and attractive landscape, or do favors is designed exclusively a function or the business logic and tourism? Are there any measures planned to ensure the proper use of it and support the life of the neighbors?
6. Economic costs.
sometimes pedestrian areas are made with partial or sectoral criteria, but the money of all citizens. Who pays for the pedestrian?
7. Loading and unloading.
operation of various urban activities at present calls for access to buildings by a series motor vehicle to load or unload goods or to bring people with disabilities or reduced mobility. Are well settled in schedules and exceptions these possibilities, or do you cause unnecessary nuisance to neighbors, merchants, etc?
Semaphores Semaphores
born eighty years ago and the car. Its aim is to spread the usage time of a cross or a portion of the roadway between the different users and public transport. That goal now seems innocuous, had great significance in its origin, when he was forging a fundamental change in the design of urban public space aimed at establishing a redistribution of the street, a pedestrian-dominated space gave way to a regulated space for the movement as fast and massive potential of motor vehicles.
The central street was gradually conquered by side vehicles and became the refuge for pedestrians. That deal, however, was the bottleneck intersections, where segregation of motorized and pedestrian circulation could not be drastically. It sets a series of performance standards, priorities and systems for mixing at junctions to different types of road users.
Traffic lights are between these management procedures crossings and therefore offer the same two sides that the rest of the urban traffic control. Today it is easy to repair itself in time management aspect of the use of intersections by various means of transport, but it is more difficult to reveal how the traffic lights at the bottom, are installed to ensure that vehicles can increase in number and speed in the city. In other words, against the idea that traffic lights are installed to ensure the crossing and, in particular, the crossing of pedestrians, reveals the fact that he also designed and installed for vehicles and, in particular, moving cars at speeds compatible with the pedestrian use of urban space free.
One could argue that since cars and motor vehicles driven on most of the urban space, there is no choice but to put traffic lights in certain parts of the city (so far no one has thought that every one of the crossings have this device d). But precisely, the question is why in some places "traffic light is needed" and in others, such as small street crossings, no point to this formula and suggest steps or steps without regular zebra or signal.
The point is that the signal is associated with heavy traffic o veloz que se perciben como intrínsecamente peligrosas, para las que no son fiables otras fórmulas de organización del espacio común entre vehículos y peatones. En este sentido, pensar los semáforos es reflexionar también sobre la destrucción de la confianza peatonal y de las responsabilidades jurídicas en los pasos de cebra, pues si se cumplieran las prioridades establecidas por la normativa y las velocidades de circulación establecidas en cada calle se podrían sustituir muchos semáforos por este tipo de pasos peatonales.
Por consiguiente, la petición de semáforos debe ser considerada como una opción de renuncia, es decir, de aceptación de que el riesgo y el peligro de las calles where quiern install can not otherwise reduce, for example, other methods of decreasing the number of vehicles that pass through there and their velocities (with flaps or narrowing, changes in flooring, central refuges).
Besides that whole previous reflections, to think in concrete traffic lights that we can review the following aspects that characterize them:
1. Green time for pedestrians.
For most people can cross safely and comfortably takes the pedestrian green phase duration of time that adds 3-5 seconds to react and 1.25 seconds per meter roadway to cross.
2. Red time for the pedestrian.
Long waits for the pedestrian may make uncomfortable and unsafe to cross the traffic lights, recommending that the red phase for the traveler does not exceed 60 seconds.
3. Length of road crossing for pedestrians.
excessive length creates insecurity crossings for pedestrians and hinder the autonomy of children, elderly and poor vision. Therefore, the length of road to cross must not exceed 12 meters or 3 lanes, although greater distances are allowed in case of intermediate shelters have (at least 2 meters wide).
4. Priorities and responsibilities at the crossing.
The pedestrian is effectively lost their right to cross due to several reasons, the introduction of simultaneous flashing green phase to amber for vehicles, which are just playing that pedestrian must hurry. The responsibility for a violation slips dangerously close to the pedestrian.
5. Additional risks of the traffic lights on dual carriageway roads.
A particular set of traffic lights make it prone to abuse those at two-way streets different roads to traffic, in which the pedestrian is conflicting information about the possibility of crossing, either because there are two pedestrian signals with different phases, either because the vehicles of the two roads are unemployed while the other can move.
6. Marking.
Pavement markings of zebra crossing should be non-slip to prevent slipping of pedestrians in case of rain. Signaling traffic lights to mark pedestrian crossing road signs that devalues \u200b\u200bwhen not accompanied by light. Finally, the lines of detention of vehicles are often too close to the pedestrian walkway, which leads to increased pedestrian discomfort and insecurity.
7. Signalized intersection design.
The pedestrian may have to take detours for lack of a stoplight on the sidewalk for running or being designed the same with a large deviation from its natural path.
Public transportation not all public transport is collective and vice versa. The collective transport is when you have capacity to transport a large number of passengers, but is managed privately, as with bus services business or school. Public transportation is when you offer a service open to any citizen under the conditions established payment, whether or not collective, like the taxi. This differentiation
collective public is not merely academic, but that interests when considering mobility policies, since the valuation of each mode of transport has to be made globally, beyond one of its technical features such as ability or their public or private. Not
must therefore restrict the discussion of mobility to the confrontation between public and private transport but open to the general analysis of advantages and disadvantages of each means of transport under the combined criteria of social, environmental and economic. Focusing the debate
on public transport, and recognizing that potentially brings a range of benefits to mobility, we also need to recognize that has a range of costs and negative consequences that can not be ignored when making a global balance.
Some utilities of public transport compared to car.
* Space. The space required to transport a passenger in a collective means is much smaller than in a car.
* Energy consumption. Public transportation is more energy efficient than the car to equal employment, that is, assuming that occupies the same percentage of seats in each medium.
* Emissions. In close correspondence with the above, potential emissions are lower per passenger carried in the media collective in the car.
* Noise. A collective vehicle generates less noise than the corresponding to that produced by a number of cars capable of carrying a passenger equivalent figure.
* Security. Although the mass to move, and therefore the potential damage is greater in a vehicle group, the cumulative risk of equivalent cars and the fact that the collective vehicle has a professional driving, inclined to favor the balance of security.
* Universality. Public transportation can be accessible to virtually the entire population, while for use in an autonomous way the car is required to have driving license and have a certain physical and mental condition. This utility shows
of public transport has led to create a mythological image according to which: public transport is good in itself, is always better than any alternative, it is always beneficial to the environment, and it is always socially useful, because its economic profitability if it is not always the least social. That mythology
overlooked, however, that public transport also pollute, make noise and wastes energy and other natural resources. It also causes injuries and deaths. In addition, it can absorb financial resources that would otherwise be directed to other social needs. There should be free, as free distorts the perspective of users of the service and provides some appropriate uses, for example, the substitution of walking trips for travel on short haul bus.
Not all means of public transit are equal in terms of capacity, adaptation to the application, environmental impact and social consequences, so its effectiveness can be quite varied. In each context
collective means of transport are more suited than others to the demands of travelers, but always difficult to objectively assess the suitability. For example, environmental and social benefits of a tram or metro can fade if not carrying enough passengers, so you may have to do with the population they serve and also with competition from other media such as the automobile.
Because there is a fundamental rule to apply at a new culture of mobility: public transport alone will not transform the dominance of the car, often a necessary but not sufficient condition to address a different pattern of mobility.
simultaneously measures are needed to stimulate alternative means of transportation (pedestrian, cycling and public transport) and disincentives and restrictions on private cars.
That rule "stimulus + deterrence" is very relevant in many debates in which public transport is used or collectively as an excuse to attack the fundamental problem of urban mobility: the role of the car. "While the administration does not ensure an adequate public transport service will not stop the car." There
finally remember that the encouragement of alternative transportation requires, first, a citizen alliance between public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists who avoid it they subtract the fee displacement without affecting the use of cars, and, secondly, that not all alternative means of transport are also always beneficial. The pedestrian should be ahead on the priorities of a mobility policy alternative.
In short, when talking about a new system, service or facility of public transport should be extended to reflect the following:
1. Integration into an overall policy of sustainable mobility.
should be part of an overall strategy under the rule of "stimulus + deterrence", scheduled at an appropriate time relative to the rest of the measures.
2. Capacity suitable for the intended users.
should provide adequate transportation capacity provided for passengers, since otherwise effective social, economic and environmental may disappear.
3. Environmental consequences.
Besides adapting to the complaint, you should opt for the best technology from the point of view. But taking into account both local effects (contamination, noise) as the global effects (climate change, biodiversity), which sometimes can be mapped (eg, emissions of the electric media produced in power generation).
4. Accessibility.
has to meet the requirements de accesibilidad, es decir, servir a la inmensa mayoría de la población sin ofrecer barreras tanto en sus vehículos como en sus paradas y terminales.
5. Relación con los peatones y los ciclistas.
Debe ofrecer alternativas de transporte para las medias y largas distancias, pero procurando no restar desplazamientos peatonales o ciclistas. El acceso a pie a las paradas y terminales debe ser cómodo y seguro, así como la combinación con la bicicleta.
6. Integración e imagen del sistema y cohesión urbana.
Debe servir para la integración de los diferentes espacios y barrios de la ciudad o del área metropolitana, ofreciendo una imagen unificada y evitar restar trips to other modes of public transport and facilitate the exchange with them.
7. Security.
should reduce the risk and danger of mobility.
8. Relationship with the environment through which it passes. Improvement of public space.
climate must improve the lag, avoiding impact on the landscape and contributing to the recovery or improvement of the quality of public space.
9. Investment and price.
must require an investment to fit their social and environmental contributions and have the appropriate user price for the mobility policy in which you enroll.
taken from: Small guide DOORSTEP to think about mobility.
Now that all the social, political and economic use the concept of sustainable mobility, one wonders what it means and if there is a common interpretation part of all of them. What do they want the environmental groups or the automotive industry when they propose to address the sustainable mobility?
Because many times the term accompanying measures to push the model displacements in opposite directions. For some mobility sustainable is to keep current trends but seeking more effective technologies to limit the environmental impact caused by vehicles. That is, it is further increasing the number of cars and other vehicles, as well as the mileage for the same, especially in those countries and cities where the engine and car use are not as high as the group of countries to which it belongs hipermotorizados Spain.
A little rule of thumb indicates that engine option to extend to the entire planet is simply not possible in terms of energy resources and materials. It is possible that each two inhabitants of this planet have a car at your disposal and make them thousands of miles annually.
From our point of view, using the concept of sustainable mobility should involve a shift in the pattern of displacement current, so as to change the role of each transport and even modify the overvaluation of the present transport the dominant culture. For transport, the mobility of people and goods, is usually not an end in itself but a means to satisfy needs.
The proposed interpretation of sustainable mobility is therefore to generate a new culture of mobility at all levels and spheres, a new approach to how we do, we value and perceive both displacement and environmental and social consequences. In this sense, we must stress that environmental and social consequences of our mobility model are not reflected only in the local area (pollution, noise, accidents, land use, loss of autonomy of children and the elderly, etc), but also on aggregate, with conditions like climate change, dwindling reserves of fossil fuels or renewable materials and inequality between people, regions and countries.
For urban mobility, this new culture requires The reformulation of policies not only directly related to mobility, but also establishing movement patterns, such as town planning, the infrastructure and economic / fiscal.
The new culture of mobility, the pedestrian should have preferential treatment, with the bicycle and public transport complementary means of transport which should form an alliance. The car would then have a new role, much lesser role and impact.
International experience demonstrates how sustainable mobility policies are most effective if taken into account a couple of golden rules: that the offer drag and invents new demand and the encouragement of alternative transportation is a necessary but not sufficient to change course on mobility.
Improving transport infrastructure and services lead to greater use of the media benefit from such improvements. Thus, a new road traffic induced, ie, modifies the behavior of current and potential users, increasing car use in this case.
The other main idea to consider is that not enough measures to stimulate alternative means of transport to the car to achieve a new balance with this means of locomotion, but it is also necessary to introduce measures deterrent.
This leads to the necessity for a comprehensive mobility strategy that includes many elements that are the foundation of mobility problems, and as complete packages of measures of all kinds, among which it is worth noting the following:
A. Fiscal, economic and regulatory.
* Establish a tax and a pricing system that reward alternative transportation to the automobile and penalizing the irrational use of it.
* Prevent whole transport detract excessive resources of other social needs.
* Use fiscal instruments and rules to penalize vehicles greatest environmental impact and higher risk.
* Establish a legal framework, administrative policy and facilitate the mainstreaming of policies and measures that favor alternative means of transport and discourage car use.
B. Urban planning, land use and mobility.
* Plan the city and its area of \u200b\u200binfluence reduction criteria motorized travel needs.
* Planning for urban growth for accessibility by non-motorized transport (walking, cycling) and public transport.
C. Infrastructure for the car.
* Avoid indiscriminate creation or expansion of existing road capacity.
* Avoid creating new parking spaces to facilitate the use of cars in the city.
D. Incentives for alternative transport to the car.
* Develop plans to improve safety and convenience of pedestrian travel.
* Carry out plans for promoting cycling including bike paths
networks * Perform extensive and profound actions to improve the functionality and attractiveness of public transport.
E. Discouraging car use.
* Establish measures restricting the movement of cars in streets, neighborhoods throughout the city.
Implement a comprehensive policy to discourage car use the car more irrational.
F. Recovery of the street as living space.
* Traffic calming with the introduction of rules and devices to reduce vehicle speeds, creating, for example areas 30 km / h.
* Establish plans and strategies to improve road safety criteria conducive to pedestrian or bicycle.
* Apply the rules of accessibility legislation in the road to facilitate movement of the entire population (including people with disabilities) and remove the so-called barriers.
* Making routine works on the street to improve conditions for pedestrians, bicycles and public transport.
G. Changes in habits and behaviors in mobility.
* apply new criteria for residential street traffic calming friendly and alternative transportation.
* Develop plans for mobility in schools (draft SCHOOL ROAD) to reduce school dependence on the automobile and motorized means.
* business plans in order to encourage use of transportation alternative for workers and visitors to its sites, including governments themselves that generate a significant amount of travel to their workplaces and public attention.
* Make plans to guide the mobility generated by the government to lower standards of environmental and social impact, both in relation to their workers and visitors to its facilities and offices.
* Develop new tools of information dissemination and promotion of the new culture of mobility, to counterbalance the necessarily biased messages reaching the public from the powerful economic interests at stake (automotive industry infrastructure, oil, etc.). Parking
95% of the time of his life private automobiles are stationary. The movement of vehicles is only useful if you ever occurs to park: no movement without parking. This truism has two momentous consequences.
The first is that to ensure or facilitate the expansion of the car has set for decades a series of regulations and policies that facilitate the parking, either in the public space in the buildings either. Without them we could ensure widespread use of private cars.
The second is the reverse of the above: to regulate automobile abuse have also been applied for decades a series of parking regulations and policies to discourage or encourage certain behaviors of motorists.
So, think parking is thinking about the use of private vehicles, so that any proposed project or parking policy can be analyzed from the following two points of view: it serves to stimulate or serves to discourage private car use? Obviously there are other issues relevant partners, including the appropriation of scarce public space for parked cars or parking needs traffic "commercial" (goods vehicles ...), but for the purpose of understanding the environmental and social problem of parking the main thing is that balance between encouraging and discouraging private car use.
Another idea to keep in mind that emerges from this is that policies, projects or parking regulations can not be a single element of the wider politics of traffic and transport, but necessarily part of the same . Are only a part, albeit significant, of a broad set of these policies and therefore can not be regarded as the sole solution nor a panacea to solve the problems of mobility.
Finally, to analyze the measures, projects and parking policies meant to implement the government should do or be a series of questions that are presented in a summary fashion below
Consistency with other more general policies and urban mobility:
Are the measures, projects or policies proposed parking consistent and concurrent with other traffic, urban development and infrastructure to, for example, towards the same goals to discourage private car and improved means of alternative transportation?
undesirable effects in other areas:
Do expected improvements after implementation of the project or policy as an area park or neighborhood involve the transfer of problems to the surrounding area or elsewhere? Sometimes these effects are not immediate and the consequences need to provide medium and long term behavior of the people.
Public Space:
to adopt "The measure would release more and better public space for other uses more interesting and effective: stay and play areas, space for pedestrians and bicycles, public transport priority? How much public space is released and what is your location?
Car usage:
After applying the new policy or the construction of new parking will there be greater use of cars in the area, both residents and visitors?
improvement or worsening of alternative transportation:
After the project, regulation or policy provided "pedestrians can walk more comfortable and safe? Will the bike new opportunities to travel also so comfortable and safe, or to park? What about public transport, will more attractive to use?
economic costs: Often
car user does not pay even the costs of the measure to its parking lot are you going to pay this time all the costs associated with parking or will receive grants are more or less undercover as advertised? If so, how much?, What kind of motorists will receive more benefits?
Pedestrian areas
We walk for many reasons, for work or school, to shop, to go to the doctor or sports or just for the sheer pleasure of walking. Walk a lot more than some believe (33% of trips in metropolitan areas of Madrid and Barcelona are walking) and the distances traveled on foot are also higher than is commonly believed.
However, despite the weight of pedestrians on the mobility of the cities, the variety of reasons for walking and the distances covered, when proposing improvements for pedestrians only thing that is often thought in pedestrian areas, ie in some areas, usually inner city, where the car was excluded at the apparent conflict between its use and limited space available for other uses of the street and, in particular, Transit of pedestrians. This creates a space where there is actually less fumes, accidents and noise.
Currently, most English cities with a pedestrian area, generally associated with a concentration of shops, bars, offices, institutions and monuments of historic centers, ie, areas often monofunctional, free range uses and actors.
From the standpoint of mobility, pedestrian areas therefore represent a highly localized and partial solution needs to have pedestrians, as you walk or just to shop or go sightseeing, or walks exclusively on a few streets the city center. For this reason have sometimes been described as "Indian reservations" granted "generous" to those outside of them do not have the minimum rights of movement in a safe, comfortable and attractive.
Despite this limited capacity for change in mobility, pedestrian areas tend to generate extreme expectations: some people believe that they can solve all the wrongs of the transport system and there are those who believe that are causing all sorts of urban ills, social and economic. Paradoxically, traders are often the first to oppose the pedestrian but then enjoy the benefits of increased sales generated by the improvement environmental act of purchasing.
A pedestrian areas are often also accused of being the origin of the lack of vitality of a neighborhood non-business hours, for the degradation of traffic in the neighboring areas, the expulsion of former residents and new applications capable of pay the increased price per square meter, the concentration of bars, or the occurrence of nuisance in public space that ultimately impair the quality of neighborhood life.
However, none of these changes can be attributed main mode and exclusively to the pedestrian, but urban policy and mobility that this is a part. For example, are urban policy, housing and land uses that facilitate or hinder the changes in housing shops and offices in the city center, the impetus behind the expulsion of young and elderly who can not afford the rent or buying a home in areas covered by the pedestrian, which allow the concentration of certain shops or pubs, or accepting certain times of opening them.
The pedestrian can help replenish these processes, but the real engines of the same, less visible, they have sought in the general urban policy and management and discipline of the council at the time of applying the regulations.
In a culture dominated by the automobile pedestrian zones have an advantage that helps offset its drawbacks: they have the teaching skills to show the possibilities of an area free of cars, educate on which we lose when we allow cars to dominate the public space .
Ultimately, pedestrian zones are neither a panacea for those who walk and the main cause of the ills of the neighborhoods in which they are implemented. Creation or expansion of existing ones should therefore be assessed by multiple criteria, among them the following:
1. Urban diversity and vitality. Is
down while the other pedestrian planning measures to ensure the maintenance of the resident population and facilities (schools, health centers, etc) and businesses linked to it?
Do you serve to improve the vitality of the neighborhood, creating living spaces, play and stay in the proximity of housing? Or they tend to concentrate activities incompatible with the quality of life for residents?
2. Pedestrian mobility.
Is it part of a plan or program to improve pedestrian mobility throughout the city? Or is exclusively localized and partial improvement no matter even how pedestrians get it?
3. Automobile use.
If you plan to reduce private car use the main question is what is the effect of the pedestrian zone on it, because sometimes the pedestrian streets make improvements in access roads and creating parking for visitors that stimulate contradictory car use?
4. Public transport and cycling.
buses, trams or bicycles take advantage of the pedestrian "to enhance their appeal or are harmed by it?
5. Public space.
traffic recovered space "is intended for different uses, the residence of citizens, the children play? "Gains in environmental quality and attractive landscape, or do favors is designed exclusively a function or the business logic and tourism? Are there any measures planned to ensure the proper use of it and support the life of the neighbors?
6. Economic costs.
sometimes pedestrian areas are made with partial or sectoral criteria, but the money of all citizens. Who pays for the pedestrian?
7. Loading and unloading.
operation of various urban activities at present calls for access to buildings by a series motor vehicle to load or unload goods or to bring people with disabilities or reduced mobility. Are well settled in schedules and exceptions these possibilities, or do you cause unnecessary nuisance to neighbors, merchants, etc?
Semaphores Semaphores
born eighty years ago and the car. Its aim is to spread the usage time of a cross or a portion of the roadway between the different users and public transport. That goal now seems innocuous, had great significance in its origin, when he was forging a fundamental change in the design of urban public space aimed at establishing a redistribution of the street, a pedestrian-dominated space gave way to a regulated space for the movement as fast and massive potential of motor vehicles.
The central street was gradually conquered by side vehicles and became the refuge for pedestrians. That deal, however, was the bottleneck intersections, where segregation of motorized and pedestrian circulation could not be drastically. It sets a series of performance standards, priorities and systems for mixing at junctions to different types of road users.
Traffic lights are between these management procedures crossings and therefore offer the same two sides that the rest of the urban traffic control. Today it is easy to repair itself in time management aspect of the use of intersections by various means of transport, but it is more difficult to reveal how the traffic lights at the bottom, are installed to ensure that vehicles can increase in number and speed in the city. In other words, against the idea that traffic lights are installed to ensure the crossing and, in particular, the crossing of pedestrians, reveals the fact that he also designed and installed for vehicles and, in particular, moving cars at speeds compatible with the pedestrian use of urban space free.
One could argue that since cars and motor vehicles driven on most of the urban space, there is no choice but to put traffic lights in certain parts of the city (so far no one has thought that every one of the crossings have this device d). But precisely, the question is why in some places "traffic light is needed" and in others, such as small street crossings, no point to this formula and suggest steps or steps without regular zebra or signal.
The point is that the signal is associated with heavy traffic o veloz que se perciben como intrínsecamente peligrosas, para las que no son fiables otras fórmulas de organización del espacio común entre vehículos y peatones. En este sentido, pensar los semáforos es reflexionar también sobre la destrucción de la confianza peatonal y de las responsabilidades jurídicas en los pasos de cebra, pues si se cumplieran las prioridades establecidas por la normativa y las velocidades de circulación establecidas en cada calle se podrían sustituir muchos semáforos por este tipo de pasos peatonales.
Por consiguiente, la petición de semáforos debe ser considerada como una opción de renuncia, es decir, de aceptación de que el riesgo y el peligro de las calles where quiern install can not otherwise reduce, for example, other methods of decreasing the number of vehicles that pass through there and their velocities (with flaps or narrowing, changes in flooring, central refuges).
Besides that whole previous reflections, to think in concrete traffic lights that we can review the following aspects that characterize them:
1. Green time for pedestrians.
For most people can cross safely and comfortably takes the pedestrian green phase duration of time that adds 3-5 seconds to react and 1.25 seconds per meter roadway to cross.
2. Red time for the pedestrian.
Long waits for the pedestrian may make uncomfortable and unsafe to cross the traffic lights, recommending that the red phase for the traveler does not exceed 60 seconds.
3. Length of road crossing for pedestrians.
excessive length creates insecurity crossings for pedestrians and hinder the autonomy of children, elderly and poor vision. Therefore, the length of road to cross must not exceed 12 meters or 3 lanes, although greater distances are allowed in case of intermediate shelters have (at least 2 meters wide).
4. Priorities and responsibilities at the crossing.
The pedestrian is effectively lost their right to cross due to several reasons, the introduction of simultaneous flashing green phase to amber for vehicles, which are just playing that pedestrian must hurry. The responsibility for a violation slips dangerously close to the pedestrian.
5. Additional risks of the traffic lights on dual carriageway roads.
A particular set of traffic lights make it prone to abuse those at two-way streets different roads to traffic, in which the pedestrian is conflicting information about the possibility of crossing, either because there are two pedestrian signals with different phases, either because the vehicles of the two roads are unemployed while the other can move.
6. Marking.
Pavement markings of zebra crossing should be non-slip to prevent slipping of pedestrians in case of rain. Signaling traffic lights to mark pedestrian crossing road signs that devalues \u200b\u200bwhen not accompanied by light. Finally, the lines of detention of vehicles are often too close to the pedestrian walkway, which leads to increased pedestrian discomfort and insecurity.
7. Signalized intersection design.
The pedestrian may have to take detours for lack of a stoplight on the sidewalk for running or being designed the same with a large deviation from its natural path.
Public transportation not all public transport is collective and vice versa. The collective transport is when you have capacity to transport a large number of passengers, but is managed privately, as with bus services business or school. Public transportation is when you offer a service open to any citizen under the conditions established payment, whether or not collective, like the taxi. This differentiation
collective public is not merely academic, but that interests when considering mobility policies, since the valuation of each mode of transport has to be made globally, beyond one of its technical features such as ability or their public or private. Not
must therefore restrict the discussion of mobility to the confrontation between public and private transport but open to the general analysis of advantages and disadvantages of each means of transport under the combined criteria of social, environmental and economic. Focusing the debate
on public transport, and recognizing that potentially brings a range of benefits to mobility, we also need to recognize that has a range of costs and negative consequences that can not be ignored when making a global balance.
Some utilities of public transport compared to car.
* Space. The space required to transport a passenger in a collective means is much smaller than in a car.
* Energy consumption. Public transportation is more energy efficient than the car to equal employment, that is, assuming that occupies the same percentage of seats in each medium.
* Emissions. In close correspondence with the above, potential emissions are lower per passenger carried in the media collective in the car.
* Noise. A collective vehicle generates less noise than the corresponding to that produced by a number of cars capable of carrying a passenger equivalent figure.
* Security. Although the mass to move, and therefore the potential damage is greater in a vehicle group, the cumulative risk of equivalent cars and the fact that the collective vehicle has a professional driving, inclined to favor the balance of security.
* Universality. Public transportation can be accessible to virtually the entire population, while for use in an autonomous way the car is required to have driving license and have a certain physical and mental condition. This utility shows
of public transport has led to create a mythological image according to which: public transport is good in itself, is always better than any alternative, it is always beneficial to the environment, and it is always socially useful, because its economic profitability if it is not always the least social. That mythology
overlooked, however, that public transport also pollute, make noise and wastes energy and other natural resources. It also causes injuries and deaths. In addition, it can absorb financial resources that would otherwise be directed to other social needs. There should be free, as free distorts the perspective of users of the service and provides some appropriate uses, for example, the substitution of walking trips for travel on short haul bus.
Not all means of public transit are equal in terms of capacity, adaptation to the application, environmental impact and social consequences, so its effectiveness can be quite varied. In each context
collective means of transport are more suited than others to the demands of travelers, but always difficult to objectively assess the suitability. For example, environmental and social benefits of a tram or metro can fade if not carrying enough passengers, so you may have to do with the population they serve and also with competition from other media such as the automobile.
Because there is a fundamental rule to apply at a new culture of mobility: public transport alone will not transform the dominance of the car, often a necessary but not sufficient condition to address a different pattern of mobility.
simultaneously measures are needed to stimulate alternative means of transportation (pedestrian, cycling and public transport) and disincentives and restrictions on private cars.
That rule "stimulus + deterrence" is very relevant in many debates in which public transport is used or collectively as an excuse to attack the fundamental problem of urban mobility: the role of the car. "While the administration does not ensure an adequate public transport service will not stop the car." There
finally remember that the encouragement of alternative transportation requires, first, a citizen alliance between public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists who avoid it they subtract the fee displacement without affecting the use of cars, and, secondly, that not all alternative means of transport are also always beneficial. The pedestrian should be ahead on the priorities of a mobility policy alternative.
In short, when talking about a new system, service or facility of public transport should be extended to reflect the following:
1. Integration into an overall policy of sustainable mobility.
should be part of an overall strategy under the rule of "stimulus + deterrence", scheduled at an appropriate time relative to the rest of the measures.
2. Capacity suitable for the intended users.
should provide adequate transportation capacity provided for passengers, since otherwise effective social, economic and environmental may disappear.
3. Environmental consequences.
Besides adapting to the complaint, you should opt for the best technology from the point of view. But taking into account both local effects (contamination, noise) as the global effects (climate change, biodiversity), which sometimes can be mapped (eg, emissions of the electric media produced in power generation).
4. Accessibility.
has to meet the requirements de accesibilidad, es decir, servir a la inmensa mayoría de la población sin ofrecer barreras tanto en sus vehículos como en sus paradas y terminales.
5. Relación con los peatones y los ciclistas.
Debe ofrecer alternativas de transporte para las medias y largas distancias, pero procurando no restar desplazamientos peatonales o ciclistas. El acceso a pie a las paradas y terminales debe ser cómodo y seguro, así como la combinación con la bicicleta.
6. Integración e imagen del sistema y cohesión urbana.
Debe servir para la integración de los diferentes espacios y barrios de la ciudad o del área metropolitana, ofreciendo una imagen unificada y evitar restar trips to other modes of public transport and facilitate the exchange with them.
7. Security.
should reduce the risk and danger of mobility.
8. Relationship with the environment through which it passes. Improvement of public space.
climate must improve the lag, avoiding impact on the landscape and contributing to the recovery or improvement of the quality of public space.
9. Investment and price.
must require an investment to fit their social and environmental contributions and have the appropriate user price for the mobility policy in which you enroll.
taken from: Small guide DOORSTEP to think about mobility.
0 comments:
Post a Comment