Effects of land use on public transport

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Effects of land use on public transport"

Beryl Morton
7 years ago
Views:

1 Effects of land use on public transport Presentation at the seminar: Urban Visions and Challenges, Lund, November 4, Professor Petter Næss Norwegian University of Life Sciences

2 Why do we want more people to go by public transport? In order to generate more income for public transport companies? (Land use policies contributing to increased motorized transport will then be favorable as long as some of the increase is accounted for by public transport) In order to promote sustainable mobility? (Land use policies contributing to shorter traveling distances, higher shares of walking and biking and less car travel will then be favorable, even if there is only small or no increase in travel by public transport)

3 Rationales for choices of transport modes among interviewees in Copenhagen Metropolitan Area The constraints and possibilities set by the person s mobility resources Time consumption Monetary costs Bodily constraints/convenience/a wish to avoid physical efforts Flexibility and freedom A wish for physical exercise Environmental considerations Lifestyle signaling Habitus/customs, and to some extent also Social norms

4 Rationales for choice among modes of travel (Hangzhou metro. area. Number of interviews indicating the rationale in parentheses) Concerning the efficiency of the movement: Time-saving (9) Flexibility (6) Expansion of the radius of action (1) Money-saving (6) Concerning the process of moving: Comfort (7) Limitation of physical efforts (8) Relaxation (3) Safety (1) Aversion against frustration (3) Physical exercise (4) Enjoyment of surrounding environment (1) Affective dislike or preference for a particular mode (3) Habits (2) Demonstration of wealth and status (3)

5 Accessibility by car and public transport in different parts of a city Public transport Individual transport

6 Workplace location (Greater Oslo)

8 Workplace location (Copenhagen metropolitan area)

9 Accessibility by transit and non-motorized modes High Low Low High Accessibility by car

10 Residential location Copenhagen metropolitan area Mean distance traveled Monday-Friday (km) walk/bike public transport car 0 under over 28 Distance from dwelling to downtown Copenhagen (km)

11 Expected proportion of travel by public transport Sat-Sun 0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 0, Dist. from the residential area to downtown Copenhagen (km) Average expected proportions of distance traveled by public transport in the weekend for each of 29 investigated areas in Copenhagen Metropolitan Area, based on the respondents' actual values on each of the two urban structural variables of the regression model, and with all other independent variables kept constant at mean values. N = 1387.

12 Residential location Greater Oslo

13 Residential location and level of public transport service Greater Oslo

14 Residential location and modal share by public transport Greater Oslo No separate effect of the standard of the public transport services among the sample as a whole. But when looking only at respondents living more than 8 km from the city center, the share of public transport is highest among those with a high level of public transport service near the residence

15 Distance from the residential area to downtown Oslo (km) Weekly motorized transport per capita (km)

16 Residential location Aalborg Km by bus Energy use for transport

17 Share of distance traveled by bus (Aalborg) Km by bike or on foot

18 Overall urban density matters to transport energy use but no separate effect of the standard of the public transport services

19 Dense cities have the highest provision of public transport services (measured in seat km per hectare) but the cities with the highest level of public transport service are also the ones with the largest population. The effect of urban area per capita on the public transport provision is weak and uncertain when controlling for the population size of the cities

20 Travel speed by public transport compared to car

21 1 Probability of commuting by car 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0, ,5 1 1,5 2 Travel time ratio car/transit Probabilities of commuting by car at varying ratios of door-to-door travel times by car and by transit, controlling for other factors of influence than the travel time ratio Probabilities refer to male respondents holding a driver s license, with a high car ownership level and good parking conditions at the workplace. The following variables have been kept constant at mean values: income level, education level, age, travel expenses paid by the employer, and errands on the way home from work. N = 261 employees living in two western suburbs of Oslo and working downtown Oslo. Sig. =

22 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Satisfactory Poor Tilfredsstillende Dårlige Parking conditions Parkeringsforhold Probability Sandsynliged of for commuting at rejse med by bil til car jobbet

23 Journeys to work among residents of the South Corridor of Oslo, with workplaces all over the metropolitan area Source: Engebretsen (1998)

24 Disappearing traffic: Changes in traffic volumes in transport corridors where the road capacity has been reduced. Source of the diagram: Cairns et al., 2002 Trondheim: Changes after converting one car lane in each direction to bus lane (afternoon rush): Travel speed for buses + 25% Bus share increased from 44% to 48% Car share reduced from 51% to 46%

25 transit walk/bike transit walk/bike car Greater Oslo, Greater Copenhagen? car transit walk/bike Aalborg? car Frederikshavn?

26 Transit-oriented suburban development a long Aarhus planned new light rail system a double-edged sword in terms of sustainable mobility and CO 2 emissions reduction

27 Conclusions Public transport can compete with the car only in quite big cities Increasing the share of public transport is not always the best policy, seen from a climate change mitigation point of view. Increasing the share of walk/bike is better Workplace location close to the city center contributes to a high share of public transport for journeys to work (and a low share of car travel) Residential location close to the city center is favorable in order to reduce traveling distances, car usage and GHG emissions but does not necessarily give a high share of public transport Dense residential development close to suburban public transport nodes promotes travel by public transport but trip distances (especially to workplaces) will then often be long and exceed what most people accept as walking or biking distances High road and parking capacity erodes the potential for a high share of public transport for journeys to work

VISION, DESIGN PRINCIPLES & OVERALL PLANNING STRATEGY

3 VISION, DESIGN PRINCIPLES & OVERALL PLANNING STRATEGY The overall planning strategy for the Bank Street CDP is to ensure that future development is undertaken in a coordinated and planned approach, supported